9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 915X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al And Fateh Deep Singh,JJ. For the Appellant : Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, DAG, Haryana ORDER Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the revenue under Section 36 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (in short the Act ) against the order dated 9.7.2012 (Annexure A-4) passed by the Haryana Tax Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ) in STR No. 39 of 2006-07 in STA No. 936 of 2004-05, claiming the following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether the provisions of Section 31(8) of the VAT Act empowers the officer detaining the goods (checking officer) to hold enquiry into the nature of the transaction occasioning the movement of goods in order to ascertain as to whether the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rious sizes while going from Faridabad to Delhi were checked near Badarpur border. As per documents, the goods were being transported to Delhi as stock transfer from Faridabad. After enquiry, it was found that the said goods were being taken to the site of Tata Teleservices, New Delhi and the stock transfer was an interstate sale. The assessing authority vide order dated 4.10.2004 (Annexure A-1) held that it was an attempt to evade tax, imposed penalty amounting to ₹ 1,09,426/- besides tax of ₹ 43,770/-. Feeling aggrieved, the dealer filed an appeal before the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeal) who vide order dated 30.11.2004 (Annexure A-2) dismissed the same. Against the order dated 30.11.2004 (Annexure A-2), the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned State counsel could not show that the findings recorded by the Tribunal were erroneous or perverse in any manner. 7. Further, the present appeal is barred by a period of 485 days. An application bearing CM No. 2757-CII of 2014 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short the 1963 Act ) has been moved for condonation of 485 days' delay in filing the appeal. 8. The explanation given in the application for condonation of delay of 485 days does not satisfy the test of sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Thus, no ground for condonation of colossal delay of 485 days has been made out. 9. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed on merits as well as being time barred. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
