9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 565X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from doing so as the same binds the writ Court applying the principle of res judicata, particularly, when the appellate authoritys orders are not challenged in the writ jurisdiction - Decided against assessee. - Writ Petition No.162 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 20-2-2015 - SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND SRI SANJAY KUMAR, JJ. For the Appellant : Sri K. Raji Reddy For the Respondent :Sri Jalakam Satyaram Order: (Per the Honble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner asking for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in levying Service Tax on the works undertaken by the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and consequently set aside the Original ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the date of the communication to him of such decision or order: Provided that the Commissioner (Appeals) may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of sixty days, allow it to be presented within a further period of thirty days. 6. It is clear that it is specific mandate that even Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 by virtue of Section 29(2) thereof, will not be applicable beyond 90 days. We are further of the view that once this period is allowed to expire intentionally or unintentionally, then remedy is absolutely barred and no Court of law can entertain the matter. However, the petitioner availed alternative remedy unsuccessf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al clear that the appellate authority has no power to allow the appeal to be presented beyond the period of 30 days. The language used makes the position clear that the legislature intended the appellate authority to entertain the appeal by condoning delay only upto 30 days after the expiry of 60 days which is the normal period for preferring appeal. Therefore, there is complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Commissioner and the High Court were therefore justified in holding that there was no power to condone the delay after the expiry of 30 days period. Now, a copy of our judgment was supplied to the learned counsel for the appellant, who after considering the same submits citing a decision of the Supreme Court in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
