9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 580X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e applications are as follows: (A) Whether the substantial right of appeal could be eclipsed on a delay of 18 days in filing the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)? (B) Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the delay was not satisfactorily explained is perverse? (C) Whether the finding of the Tribunal to disbelieve the explanation of delay is based on presumptions and conjectures? (D) Whether the finding of dismissal of appeal for delay is wholly arbitrary and unjustified? In effect the question of law which arises is whether the Tribunal was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case in refusing to condone the delay. An ex parte assessment order was passed on February 28, 1998 imposing tax liabil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter remand, the appellate authority again rejected the delay condonation application by order dated March 16, 2002 by detailed order giving same reasons. The appeals of the dealer against the same were also dismissed by the Tribunal by the impugned order dated March 26, 2004. Aggrieved by the same, the present revisions have been filed. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that there was delay of only 18 days in preferring the appeal and the dealer was not likely to reap any benefit by filing the appeal late or it would put him into any kind of advantage if the appeal was filed beyond time. In fact, the dealer would be put into adverse position as the recovery of tax against the dealer imposed by the assessing offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e parties, in my view, where the delay is not intentional nor it gives any kind of advantage or benefit to the appellant, the delay should normally be condoned. However, reasonable explanation has to be furnished by the appellant. This is also the settled view of the apex court as laid down in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji reported in [1987] 66 STC 228; [1987] UPTC 2187 which has been relied upon in the decision of Rum Plast Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur reported in [2006] UPTC 1081. In the present case, I find that the dealer had given sufficient explanation by specifically alleging that the deponent, Indradev Singh was the sole working partner and the rest of the partners were not actively involved in carrying on the busin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
