9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (5) TMI 420X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tertain the refund applications made by petitioners. 3.. Brief facts are that for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88, the petitioners purchased chocolate from M/s. Hindustan Coka Products Limited, Ghaziabad, which was subsequently renamed as Cadbury India Limited. There was come confusion about the rate of tax. The belief was that the rate of tax was 8.8 per cent and at that rate the tax w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view strictly construing the proviso to section 29-A of the Act, which provides that no such claim shall be entertained after the expiry of three years from the date of the order of assessment or one year from any date of the final order on appeal, revision or reference, if any, in respect thereof, whichever is later. 5.. The case of the petitioners is that order of the Tribunal dated November 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the respondents is that period of limitation of one year as prescribed in the proviso is inflexible. 6.. The question for consideration is whether period of limitation as provided by proviso to section 29-A will be reckoned from the date of knowledge of the Tribunal's order on the part of the petitioners or from the date of the order of the Tribunal. This proposition is not res integra, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ciated by the Supreme Court, we agree with the contention of the petitioners that limitation should be reckoned from the date of the knowledge of the order of the Tribunal. The relevant facts about the date of the order of the Tribunal and date when the order of the Tribunal was communicated to the petitioners, as stated in the petition, have not been denied in the counter-affidavit and, therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
