9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (11) TMI 750X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the local and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The assessment order pertaining to the assessment year 1984-85 (L C) had been framed on March 31, 1989. As the petitioner had failed to produce the statutory forms during the assessment proceedings before the assessing authority, the assessing authority had created additional demand in the sum of Rs. 5,20,116 under the local Act and Rs. 14,817.60 paise under the Central Act for the said assessment year. Similarly, the assessing authority raised additional tax demand with regard to the assessment year 1985-86 vide its order dated March 30, 1990. The demand under the local Sales Tax Act was raised primarily on the ground that ST-1 forms in respect of the sales made to the registered dealers were n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t have powers to condone the delay within 30 days. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 3.. We have heard Mr. B.B. Ahuja, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Shri H.C. Bhatia, Standing Counsel for the department. 4.. As per section 45(1) of the DST Act, any dealer aggrieved of an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal may by a written application seek reference to the High Court on question of law arising from the said order within 60 days from the date of the order. The Appellate Tribunal, if satisfied, that the dealer was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the application within 60 days from the date of the order, may allow the same to be presented within a further period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment year 1985-86 and 1984-85 was not received by the petitioner. The contention is, as to what more evidence could have been given by the petitioner in negative. The burden was squarely on the department to prove that the copy of the order was collected by someone on behalf of the petitioner on July 4, 1996 from the Registry of the Tribunal. It is contended that, as per rule 46 of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1975 (in short "the Rules"), the order should have been delivered or tendered to the petitioner or its agent or to a person regularly employed by the petitioner in connection with its business. It was for the department to state as to who had collected the copy of the order from the office of respondent No. 1 and whether he was author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el for the petitioner that in the instant case this requirement of the Rules has not been complied with, while allegedly delivering the copy of the order for the assessment year 1985-86 to some person allegedly on July 4, 1996, by taking some signatures on the despatch register which were not identifiable. 7.. The order dated November 5, 1996 of the Appellate Tribunal pertaining to the assessment year 1984-85 was allegedly sent to the petitioner by registered post. The petitioner has denied the receipt of any such order. The denial is by way of an affidavit of the Deputy Manager of the petitioner-company who had been looking after its sales tax work. The Tribunal has disbelieved this affidavit treating it as a self-serving affidavit and b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or Counsel for the petitioner has further brought to our notice that the petitioner-company had closed its office in Delhi in October, 1995 and had changed its address prior to March, 1996 and even the registration certificate was surrendered on March 27, 1996. The factum about its change of address was communicated to the assessing officer vide its letter dated March 27, 1996. Mr. Bhatia, learned Standing Counsel submits that admittedly the closing of the petitioner's office in Delhi and its changed address was not communicated to the Appellate Tribunal and admittedly there was a chowkidar at the Delhi address of the petitioner and the copy of the order, sent under registered post, must have been received by the Chowkidar. No doubt, acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was so held in [1962] 44 ITR 689 (SC) (K.T.M.T.M. Adbul Kayoom v. Commissioner of Income-tax). 10.. Mr. Bhatia, learned Standing Counsel for the department further contends that it is inconceivable that the petitioner, in case, had not received the order, would not have enquired about the fate of the appeals pending before the Appellate Tribunal which had been argued in June, 1996 and October, 1996, specially when the petitioner was represented by a seasoned counsel who regularly used to appear before the Tribunal. We do not find any force in these submissions. The counsel was under no obligation to make enquiries, collect the order and communicate the same to the petitioner. 11.. The respondent further raised the plea that the writ pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
