9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missing the appeal of the appellant-company holding the same to be barred by limitation and dismissing the same in-limine in light of law and facts therein?" 3. The facts leading to the present Appeals in nut-shell are as under: 3.1 The appellant Company is a registered dealer under the Act, having registration No.24211300563. It is the case of the appellant that the Company had availed loan facilities and had subsequently defaulted whereby the accounts of the Company were classified as NPA (Non-performing Assets). The lending bank had initiated proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short "SARFAESI Act"), whereby an order came to be passed on 24.02.2015 directing to take over the possession of the appellant premises by lending bank. 3.2 At the same time, the proceedings under Section 34 of the Act were undertaken, whereby an ex-parte order dated 11.03.2015 came to be passed against the appellant - assessee, thereby denying the total claim of input tax in its entirety. Similarly, the assessment was also directed for A.Y. 2009-10, 2011-12 and 2013-14. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rify the aspect of service of order dated 12.10.2015 as alleged to have been served on the business premises of the appellant - assessee at Bharuch. 3.8 Thereafter, the Tribunal upon taking into consideration the application dated 25.07.2019 submitted by the appellant - assessee as regards the factual contents with regard to the order of First Appeal being served, not being made available with the appellant and having thereby requested for another copy, the Tribunal construed the said letter against the appellant - assessee by treating it as an admission on the part of the appellant - assessee being duly served with the order dated 12.10.2015. Thus, the Tribunal vide common order dated 06.07.2021 rejected both the Second Appeal Nos.743/744 of 2019. 3.9 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid common order dated 06.07.2021 passed by the Tribunal in dismissing the appeals and confirming the order of the First Appellate Authority in not condoning the delay and consequently the appeal on the ground of limitation, the appellant assessee is before this Court by filing present Tax Appeals. 4. Mr. Hiren Trivedi, the learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellant - a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also placed on record the extract of Company Master Data to justify the fact that in fact the registered address of the appellant - assessee is at Mumbai. 6. Mr. Trivedi, the learned counsel has further referred to and relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Niki Oil Mills Vs. State of Gujarat reported in [2014] 41 taxmann.com 290 (Gujarat) and has submitted that the Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay on appropriate costs and at the same time, the assessee Company be given a fair chance to submit their case on merits in the interest of justice. Learned counsel further submitted that in absence of any mala fide intention of the assessee in not filing appeal within prescribed period of limitation, this Court had condoned the delay of more than 10 years and has permitted the assessee Company to argue its case on merits before the Tribunal. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, the learned AGP has appeared on behalf of the respondent Authority and has supported the order dated 06.07.2021 passed by the Tribunal in Second Appeal. The learned AGP has by relying upon the order under challenge submitted that the Tribunal has committed no error of fact or law while pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act of taking over the possession of the premise of the appellant - assessee at Bharuch came to be passed by the competent Authority on 24.02.2015. Thus, it can safely be presumed that since 24.02.2015, the possession of the premise of the appellant - assessee was taken over by the lending bank. This Court on perusal of the contents of the letter dated 05.12.2018 produced by the appellant - assessee finds that the possession and key of the aforesaid property was handed over to the authorized person of the assessee Company after 30.11.2018. As against that, the Court finds that the order under challenge before the Tribunal i.e. First Appellate Authority was passed an order on 12.10.2015. Thus, the service of the order is effected on the premises which was in actual possession of the Bank of India. Further on appreciation of the documents produced before this Court, more particularly, the extract of the Company's Master Data, order dated 24.02.2015 passed by the Collector, Bharuch and the copy of the notice of demand dated 05.09.2018, registered address of the assessee Company seems to be based at Mumbai. In such circumstances, this Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
