9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 807X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeal itself was not maintainable, refused to elaborate on the merit of the order. When we are of the opinion that the appeal was maintainable and that the revisional authority therefore committed an error in reversing the appellate order on the ground of maintainability, we must restore the proceedings before the revisional authority for decision on merits. For such purpose, the revisional order shall have to be set aside. For the same reason the order passed by the Tribunal confirming the revisional order shall also go. The proceedings are restored before the revisional authority - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - Special Civil Application No. 10334 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 18-8-2017 - MR. AKIL KURESHI AND MR. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner depositing such sum, the goods were actually released under an order dated 04.12.2010. This order recorded that the vehicle carrying the goods was detained on 20.11.2010 and since a sum of ₹ 10,24,256/by way of duty plus penalty has been paid up by the petitioner in terms of section 68 of the Value Added Tax Act, as per the telephonic instructions received on 04.12.2010, the goods were released. 4. The petitioner preferred appeal against the order dated 26.11.2010. The Appellate Authority by an order dated 10.03.2011 set aside the levying of penalty but did not disturb the demand of duty. The petitioner after corresponding with the department for refund of the penalty and having failed in the attempt, approached this Court se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egorized as an order and at any rate, it was not an order of assessment. If therefore, the communication dated 26.11.2010 is treated as not an appealable order, there was no order passed by competent authority levying duty or penalty. In that view of the matter, the department would have no authority to collect such duty and penalty. The communication dated 04.12.2010 merely recorded that the vehicle with the goods was detained and the petitioner had paid up a sum of ₹ 10,24,256/by way of duty and penalty in terms of section 68 of the VAT Act. On account of this, as per telephonic instructions from the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, the vehicle was released. This communication under no circumstances can be treated as an order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rror in reversing the appellate order on the ground of maintainability, we must restore the proceedings before the revisional authority for decision on merits. For such purpose, the revisional order shall have to be set aside. For the same reason the order passed by the Tribunal confirming the revisional order shall also go. 11. In the result, the petition is allowed in part. Orders dated 22.04.2015 passed by the revisional authority and 20.10.2016 passed by the VAT Tribunal are set aside. The proceedings are restored before the revisional authority. The communication dated 26.11.2010 shall be treated as an appealable order assessing the duty and penalty liability of the petitioner. The revisional authority shall dispose of the revision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
