9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 1000X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b ORDER Rajesh Bindal, J 1. This order will dispose of a bunch of appeals bearing VATAP Nos.33 to 35, 80 to 83, 85 and 87 to 96 of 2010, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. 2. The appellants have approached this Court raising the following substantial questions of law:- i. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the order of the tribunal annexure 'A-6' is not a Non Speaking order? ii. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Department has explained the delay by a 'sufficient cause' and has been able to show due diligence in perusing the remedy? iii. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the decision of the Tribunal in K. Ajesh and Company which was not a binding precedent and was under challenged before the High Court by the department could form a 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay? iv. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the prejudice being caused to the dealer by condonation of such a long delay was not factor to the considered. v. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case tribunal ought to considered the objection raise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1989-90 22.04.2002 10. VATAP No.88/2010 M/s Sachdeva and Sons Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. 1992-93 22.04.2002 11. VATAP No.89/2010 M/s Sachdeva and Sons Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. 1991-92 22.04.2002 12. VATAP No.90/2010 M/s Varun Export 1995-96 29.04.2002 13. VATAP No.91/2010 M/s Sachdeva Oil and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. 1994-95 16.04.2002 14. VATAP No.92/2010 M/s Sachdeva and Sons Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. 1994-95 22.04.2002 15. VATAP No.93/2010 M/s Sachdeva and Sons Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. 1990-91 22.04.2002 16. VATAP No.94/2010 M/s Sachdeva Oil and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. 1991-92 16.04.2002 17. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The facts mentioned in the applications merely suggested that at different stages, the officers of the Department had been sleeping. Even if, the State is given latitude in condonation of delay, the same cannot be to the extent sought in the case in hand. In support of the plea, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Vedabai alias Vaijayantabai Baburao Patil vs. Shantaram Baburaon Patil and others, AIR 2001 SC 2582, and judgments of this Court in M/s Hansaflon Plasto Chem. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana and others, (2012) 43 PHT 182 (P H), State of Punjab and another vs. M/s Tata Iron Steel Co. Ltd., (2011) 38 PHT 391 (P H), VATAP No.3 of 2012 -- M/s Paliwal Overseas Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana, decided on 21.8.2012 and VATAP No.41 of 2014 -- State of Haryana vs. M/s Windorz India Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad and another, decided on 22.9.2014. 6. He further submitted that in The State of Punjab vs. M/s Jain Bharat Industries, Raman Mandi, District Bathinda, VSTI 2008 C-248 and The State of Punjab vs. M/s Ganesh Oil Mills, Maur Mandi, District Bathinda, VSTI 2008 C-251, the Tribunal had dismissed the applications filed by the State seeking condonat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udgment of this Court in Patiala Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited's case (supra). 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. 9. The undisputed facts, which are on record are that in the case of the appellants, the assessment for the years from 1983-84 to 1996-97 were framed by the assessing authority by passing orders on different dates in April, 2002. The details are mentioned in para No.3 of the judgment. The issue regarding limitation for passing the orders of assessment was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Patiala Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited's case (supra) and it was opined that the assessments upto the years 1997-98 could not validly be passed after April, 2001. Relevant para thereof is extracted below:- 14. As noticed before, there was no limitation prescribed under Section 11 of the PGST Act for passing an assessment order before the amendment. Therefore, the period of three years prescribed for passing an assessment order would be counted for all those assessment years as per the amended provision effective from 3.3.1998. In other words, in respect of assessment years falling upto 1997-98, no assessment order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
