9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 1132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal order itself wherein it has been clearly recorded that order dated 06.09.2018 was served on the person in-charge of the vehicle which would be the driver and not the appellant. No useful purpose would be served in keeping the present petition pending or calling for counter affidavit at this stage, the present petition is allowed. - WRIT TAX No. - 20 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 13-1-2021 - S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arge of the vehicle which would be the driver and not the appellant. Then reliance has been placed on an earlier order of this Court passed in Writ Tax No.1388 of 2018 decided on 10.12.2018 wherein it was observed as below:- 7. It is seen that the language of Section 107(1) of the Act provides for a period of limitation of three months from the date of communication of the order. Then Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the impugned penalty order was served on the driver of the truck while the penalty order is directed against the owner of the goods. Therefore, for that reason also it may be accepted that the penalty order had not been communicated to the petitioner prior to the date 25.05.2018. 3. The aforesaid view appears to have been taken in certain other decisions referred to by learned counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
