9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 646X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if there is clerical or arithmetical mistake apparent from the record of the case. By moving the rectification applications, the appellant sought benefit of ITC claim for higher amount than that allowed by the Assessing Authority under the Act. Further, the rectification could be done by the Assessing Authority within two years from the date of supply of copy of the order. The copy of the assessment order dated 4.2.2011 was supplied to the appellant on 11.4.2011 and, therefore, the rectification order could be passed upto 11.4.2013 only. However, the appellant filed the first appeal on 27.12.2013 for which no explanation was furnished by it. Since no explanation muchless satisfactory explanation was furnished, the Tribunal has rightly d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e entertained at any stage as per settled law? 2. A few facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The appellant is engaged in the manufacturing and trading of wires and cables mainly sold to the Department of Telecommunications, Government undertakings. The Assessing Authority vide order dated 4.2.2011 (Annexure A-1) framed the assessment for the year 2007-08 and created an additional demand of ₹ 27,11,689/- under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short the 1956 Act ) on account of absence of declaration in Form C-4 under the Act and also on account of Form C under the 1956 Act. Against the order, Annexure A-1, the appellant filed an appeal under the 1956 Act befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appeal was that the appellant had moved applications (Annexure A-4 Colly) to the Assessing Authority for rectification of the order dated 4.2.2011 regarding allowing of less Input Tax Credit (ITC). The Ist Appellate Authority vide order dated 27.1.2014 (Annexure A-5) rejected the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and consequently, the appeal was also dismissed as not maintainable being barred by time. Still dissatisfied, the appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal on 10.6.2014 (Annexure A-6). During the pendency of the appeal, the recovery proceedings were initiated against the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant filed CWP-11643-2015 challenging the recovery proceedings and this Court vide order dated 28.5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Authority under the Act. Further, the rectification could be done by the Assessing Authority within two years from the date of supply of copy of the order. The copy of the assessment order dated 4.2.2011 was supplied to the appellant on 11.4.2011 and, therefore, the rectification order could be passed upto 11.4.2013 only. However, the appellant filed the first appeal on 27.12.2013 for which no explanation was furnished by it. Since no explanation muchless satisfactory explanation was furnished, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to pin point any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the Tribunal which may warrant interference by this Court. No subst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
