9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority was duty bound to consider the cause shown by the petitioner and to determine whether the same constitutes sufficient cause. The matter was required to be remanded in order to enable the Appellate Authority to appreciate the cause shown - However, we find that the petitioner has stated that its old consultant was not keeping good health and suffering from heart ailment. The consultant, in fact, underwent bypass surgery as well. Accordingly, the papers were handed over to another consultant. However, this consultant also fell sick and virtually lost his eyesight due to diabetic retinopathy. According to us, in the peculiar facts of the present case, this constitutes sufficient cause for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lue Added Tax, 2005 (said Act), inter alia, provides that any person objecting to an order affecting him passed under the provisions of this Act by an authority may appeal to Appellate Authority as may be prescribed within sixty days from the date of receipt of order by him. Sub-section 2 of Section 35 provides that where the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the person has reasonable cause for not preferring an appeal within sixty days, he may accept an appeal, provided it is made within a period of one year, from the date of receipt of order by him. 5. In this case, the order dated 31/03/2012 sought to be appealed before the Appellate Authority, it appears was served upon some representative, not actually upon the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2012 till 26/04/2013 also does not make out any case for sufficient cause. He points out that the tax deemed in the present case was ₹13,01,044/- as on 31/03/2012. He points out that the petitioner has deposited hardly ₹3,00,000/- or thereabout. In such circumstances, he submits that there is no case made out to interfere with the impugned order. 8. Rival contentions now fall for determination. 9. Though, it is true that there is no sufficient clarity in the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner, it transpires that the order dated 31/03/2012 was not directly served upon the petitioner herein. The issue as to whether the party upon whom this order was served was an authorised representati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ultant, in fact, underwent bypass surgery as well. Accordingly, the papers were handed over to another consultant. However, this consultant also fell sick and virtually lost his eyesight due to diabetic retinopathy. According to us, in the peculiar facts of the present case, this constitutes sufficient cause for non instituting the appeal within the prescribed period. It is true that the petitioner, should have acted with little greater diligence. Therefore, whilst condoning the delay, the petitioner will have to be put to terms. 13. The petitioner, in the first place, will have to pay to the respondents the demanded amount of ₹13,01,044/- after taking credit for the amount of ₹3,00,000/- or thereabout already ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
