9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 426X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 15 March 2011 of Commissioner (Appeals), being impugned before the revisional authority, was received on 18 December 2013. This particularly in the absence of any evidence being led by the Revenue, that the order dated 15 March 2011 of the Commissioner (Appeals) was served in the manner provided in Section 37C of the Act. Therefore, the period of three months for filing of the revision in ter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondents. P.C:. At the request of the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. 2. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order dated 20 December 2018, passed by Respondent No.1, i.e. Principal Commissioner Ex-Officio, Additional Secretary to Government of India. The impugned order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aution, by holding that the Applicant has not adduced any evidence in support of its condonation application that the order dated 15 March 2011 was not received by it at the time when it was passed. 4. It was and is the Petitioner's case as pleaded before Respondent No.1 that there is no delay in filing the revision application as the order dated 15 March 2011 was received by it only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner (Appeals) was served in the manner provided in Section 37C of the Act. Therefore, the period of three months for filing of the revision in terms of Section 35EE of the Act has to be computed from the communication of the order dated 15 March 2011 to the parties which has taken place only on 18 December 2013. Thus the revision application is in time. It is unfair on the part of the Reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
