9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner is alleged to have been invoked, the said matter ought to have been considered by the Appellate Authority. Once the entire tax and penalty imposed on the petitioner and secured by the Bank Guarantee was fully satisfied by invoking the guarantee, there cannot be any insistence of a further payment contemplated under section 107(6)(b). This aspect was not considered in Ext.P5. Failure to consider the alleged encashment of bank guarantee has also rendered the impugned order perverse. Petition allowed. - WP(C) NO. 6662 OF 2022 - - - Dated:- 2-3-2022 - THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS PETITIONER: ADVS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... defects noticed. Petitioner challenges the order rejecting the appeal as defective. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of the second respondent is perverse and is liable to be interfered with. Learned counsel also submitted that as far as the limitation period is concerned, this Court has specifically observed in Ext.P2 judgment that the Appellate Authority must exclude the time spent by the petitioner before this Court. The failure of the Appellate Authority to consider the said binding direction has rendered the order patently erroneous and perverse. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the requirement of a pre-deposit under section 107 of the Act does not arise in the instant case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if the petitioner files a statutory appeal, it meets the ends of justice if the Appellate Authority, while revoking limitation, excludes the time the petitioner spent here in this writ petition. I order so. 9. The said direction is binding upon the second respondent. Once this Court directed that the time spent in the writ petition is to be excluded, the Appellate Authority could not have done otherwise. However, contrary to the binding observations of this Court, extracted above, the Appellate Authority refused to condone the delay citing the reason that statute permits condonation of delay only up to 30 days. Since this Court had directed the Appellate Authority to exclude the period spent by the petitioner in pursuing the litigatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
