9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 915X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty and sons v. Union of India Ors., [ 2023 (12) TMI 290 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] . In the aforesaid judgment this Hon ble Division Bench while interpreting the provisions of the said Act having regard to Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 has held that since there is no expressed or implied exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, by virtue of Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 stands attracted. The present case is, however, still more peculiar. In this case although, the petitioner s appeal was filed within time, by reasons of technical glitches the same was rejected. When the petitioner preferred the second appeal, as there is no option to seek review of the first appeal, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vehicle was intercepted by the respondent no. 1 on 28th July 2022 on the ground of failure on the part of the driver of the conveyance to produce all relevant documents before the concerned authorities. Following the aforesaid, a physical verification order dated 29th July, 2022 was passed by observing as follows:- 1. The genuiness of the goods in transit (its quantity etc) and / or tendered documents require further verification. 2. Others: TAX INVOICE IS NOT DULY SIGNED BY THE RTP OR HIS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY. 3. The same was followed by an order of detention under Section 129 (1) of the said Act dated 30th July 2022 and a show cause notice under Section 129(3) of the said Act. It may be seen that the petitioner, in terms of Section 129 (1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted that the petitioner having paid the penalty/interest under Section 129 (1) (a) of the said Act, could not have been called upon by the appellate authority to make payment of any pre deposit. 6. Unfortunately, since the petitioner had not inserted the amount of penalty in the disputed tax column by reasons of technical glitch, the same was rejected by the appellate authority. The appellate authority ought to have taken into consideration the aforesaid and ought to have noted that the first appeal filed by the petitioner on 30th August 2022 was within the time prescribed and as such, ought to have condoned the delay in preferring the subsequent appeal. 7. Mr. Siddiqui, learned advocate appearing for the State submits that the entire prob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... delay in preferring the appeal, provided the same is filed within one of the time prescribed, I am of the view that the said issue had already been decided by the Hon ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.K. Chakraborty and sons v. Union of India Ors., reported in (2023) SCConline Cal 4757. In the aforesaid judgment this Hon ble Division Bench while interpreting the provisions of the said Act having regard to Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 has held that since there is no expressed or implied exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, by virtue of Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 stands attracted. 11. The present case is, however, still more peculiar. In this c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
