9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1061X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellate authority and failed to provide any intimation to the revisionist about the fate of the case, the delay is caused. The explanation of the revisionist prima facie appears reasonable, genuine and bonafide. The explanation offered by the revisionist is adequate. Once the counsel representing the revisionist accepted his failure to discharge his duties, the assessee should not be punished. The matters are remanded to the Tribunal to examine the issues on merits - Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. - 109 of 2019, 110 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 17-4-2019 - Ashok Kumar,J. For the Applicant : Suyash Agarwal For the Opposite Party : C.S.C. ORDER These two revision petitions are filed by the revisionist against the common ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Sales Tax Act. The assessing authority has imposed the tax @ 12.5% against which an appeal has been filed under Section 55 of the U.P.VAT Act. The first appeals were rejected ex parte vide the order dated 23.07.2014. The first appellate authority has mentioned in his ex parte order dated 23.07.2014 that the notices were issued to the revisionist to participate in the proceedings but on the date fixed no one appeared on behalf of the revisionist company. It is mentioned in the order that on the request of the revisionist the case was adjourned for 15.07.2014. It is also noted by the first appellate authority that on the date fixed i.e. 15.07.2014 no one appeared on behalf of the revisionist, therefore, the order has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd explanation has been given by the appellant that due to disturbance in the family the counsel namely Sri Nitin Agarwal he failed to appear and therefore ex parte proceedings were carried out and further that the orders are received by the counsel are not handed over to the revisionist company. It is also contended that the delay is caused due to failure on the part of the counsel representing the company as admittedly he has not informed the assessee about the decision of ex parte proceedings concluded by the first appellate authority long back on 23.07.2014. It was also submitted that it is only when the recovery proceedings were initiated and recovery citation has been received by the revisionist, the revisionist came to know ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
