9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 1233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has instead filed this Petition challenging the order passed by the Respondent beyond the maximum limitation period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of that order - HELD THAT:- The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada -vs- Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited [ 2020 (5) TMI 149 - SUPREME COURT ] has emphatically laid down that the Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondent, and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties. 2. The Respondent by Order in TIN 33432940604/2012-13 dated 15.09.2016 has levied tax for the year 2012-13 under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) in respect of the Petitioner, who had received copy of that order on 16.11.2016. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 020 in Civil Appeal No. 2413 of 2020) has emphatically laid down that the High Court in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to entertain Writ Petition assailing the order passed by a Statutory Authority which was not appealed against within the maximum period of limitation before the concerned Appellate Authority. Having regard to that legal position, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h appeal. The http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. No. 5407 of 2017 obvious rationale behind the governing dictum is that where the maximum period of limitation prescribed in the statute for preferring appeal against an order before the Appellate Authority has lapsed, it is not permissible to circumvent the legislative intent manifested in that bar created by resorting to thereafter invoke the discretiona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
