9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 887X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plication 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. - - - - - Dated:- 9-7-2008 - PRAKASH KRISHNA , J. PRAKASH KRISHNA J. The present revision is directed against the order dated December 29, 1999 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Lucknow, in Appeal No. 33 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el committee granted the eligibility certificate by the order dated February 1, 1997 with effect from December 26, 1995 up to June 21, 2002. The applicant thereafter filed a review application which was ultimately dismissed on December 19, 1998. The said order was challenged in appeal before the Trade Tax Tribunal which was numbered as Appeal No. 33 of 1999. The said appeal has been allowed in part by the Tribunal and it has ordered the eligibility certificate already granted to the dealer be amended and made it effective since February 6, 1995, the date on which the applicant had sent the application for grant of eligibility certificate, for a second time. In the memo of revision, the following questions of law have been framed: 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kesh Ranjan Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant, submits the following two points: 1.. That the applicant had applied for grant of eligibility certificate by means of application dated December 6, 1994 sent under the registered postal cover to the authority concerned. The said application was filed within six months, the period provided for filing such application and therefore, the eligibility certificate should have been granted with effect from June 26, 1994, the date of first sale . 2.. That the applicant-unit was temporarily registered with SmallScale Industries Department. The permanent registration was obtained subsequently. He submits that a temporary registration was granted by the authority concerned. In view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted by the dealer to the above facts. The Tribunal without making any adverse comments, proceeded to decide the appeal on the ground that for whatever be the reason, the application was not filed within the time, so the applicant was not entitled for eligibility certificate for the full period. In other words, according to it the fact that the dealer had applied on December 6, 1994 and its application was returned by the postal department due to State Government employee's strike, no advantage can be derived by the applicant. On the facts of the present case, it is difficult to agree with the aforesaid approach of the Tribunal. It is not disputed that there was strike by the State Government employees at the relevant point of time. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
