9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 887X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shed in June, 1994 for manufacture of veneer core flush door, pannel door, plywood and block board, etc. The production of the unit was started on June 18, 1994 and the first sale took place on June 22, 1994. It applied for grant of exemption under section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). According to it, on December 6, 1994, i.e., within six months from the date of first production, requisite papers were sent by registered post to the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Ghaziabad. The said registered envelope was returned back by the post office with the endorsement that the State Government employees were on strike. After the calloff of the strike, the applicant again applied for grant o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return of the same by the Postal Department on account of indefinite strike of the State Government employees, does not fall under the word "applies" as mentioned in section 4A(5)(a) of the Act? 2.. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the return of registered envelope by Postal Department containing the correct address is not a presumed service under section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 read with section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872 specially when there was no latches on part of the applicant in dispatching the application? 3.. Whether, in any view of the matter, the Tribunal rightly directed the District Level Committee to allow the exemption effective from February 6, 1995 in the eligibility certificate, i.e., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4A of the Act. The dealer-applicant did not "apply" within the statutory period and it removed the defects subsequently, the Tribunal was justified in granting the exemption from the date when the defects were removed, for the remaining period. The respective submissions of learned counsel for the parties were considered and the record perused. Taking the first point first, it may be noted that from the very beginning the case of the dealer-applicant is that it sent the application within the period of six months from the date of production, i.e., on December 6, 1994 by a registered post. Along with the affidavit filed in support of revision, the applicant has enclosed the documents such as postal receipt showing the dispatch of the appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne what it could do in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is also well-settled that no person can be compelled to do an impossible act. On the face of a strike nobody could serve or file the application before the authority concerned. No person was there to receive the same. The view taken by the Tribunal that the applicant did not "apply" within the prescribed period is not legally correct. On the facts of the present case, the applicant did what it could do in the facts and circumstances of the case and as such the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the applicant did not apply within the statutory period cannot be sustained. The said issue is therefore, decided in favour of the applicant and against the Department. So far as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
