9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the counter affidavit, especially, paragraph 8, wherein,the delay in filing the appeal is calculated to the tune of 134 days, the Tribunal passed the order. - the date of service of the order of the Appellate Tribunal to the State's representative as the actual date to be taken into consideration for calculating the period of limitation and if that is being taken into consideration, it is apparen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessment year 1993-94, thereby levied tax and maximum penalty. Against the said order, the petitioner filed appeal in A.P.No.CST.47/99 before the second respondent, who partly allowed and partly dismissed the said appeal on 17.12.1999. Aggrieved against the same, the 3rd respondent filed an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, who is the 4th respondent herein. Since the appeal was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal was filed only on 27.10.2000 with a delay of 134 days or 132 days, but not 119 days as stated by the 3rd respondent in its condonation delay petition and thus the appeal was filed over and above the appeal period of 120 days. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the third respondent filed appeal on 27.10.2000 with a delay of 134 days or 132 days and therefore the appeal fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled challenging the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in STMP.No. 332/2001 dated 13.2.2002, wherein, the specific date of service was not specified and the delay was taken into consideration as 119 days. On the other hand, the respondent herein filed a counter, pointing out the actual date of receipt of notice by the departmental representative as 18.2.2000 and if the limitation pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
