9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 1068X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent case, the appeal was preferred certainly after 30+180 days. There was again a delay of more than 36 days and in those circumstances the Tribunal has also dismissed the appeal. The statute does not provide for condoning the delay beyond 180 days, and therefore, once the statute does not provide for condoning the delay, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal. In the considered opinion of this Court, there can be no extension of limitation even by the Second Appellate Authority and by the First Appellate Authority keeping in view Section 62(3) of the KVAT Act beyond the period of 180 days - appeal dismissed. - S.T.R.P. NO.6 OF 2019 - - - Dated:- 16-7-2021 - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND HON BLE MR. J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct of any other order or proceedings, within thirty days from the date on which the order was communicated to the appellant: (3) The Assessing Authority may admit an appeal preferred after the period as aforesaid but within a further period of one hundred and eighty days, if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within that period. 4. The aforesaid statutory provision of law makes it very clear that an appeal has to be preferred within a period of 30 days from the date of order of assessment. In the present case, undisputedly, the appeal was not preferred within 30 days from the date of the order of assessment served upon the appellant. Clause 3 provides the Appellate Authority to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as contained under the KVAT Act, does not provide that the period of limitation cannot be extended further specially keeping in view the judgment delivered in the case of VASAVI INDUSTRIES, HIRIYUR (supra), paragraphs 13 to 15 of the order passed by the Tribunal reads as under : 13. We are also of the considered opinion that, under the above circumstances the FAA therefore, by keeping in view the provisions of sub-Sec.(3) of Sec.62 of the Act, has rightly dismissed the appeals on the ground of time limitation. The Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the following judgments has also laid down law to that effect. We quote the judgments here under : i) In the case of Vasavi Industries, Hiriyur, Chitradurga District Vs. State O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
