9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (6) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epresentative Mr. C.L. Jain, came forward with a preliminary objection that the appeals are not maintainable. According to him, the Appellate Controller could not entertain the first appeals of the accountable person, as there is a bar available as per section 62 of the Act that unless duty was paid, no appeal would lie before the Appellate Controller. The learned departmental representative was, however, fair enough to admit that neither the revenue is in cross-objection nor has filed any appeal before us against the orders of the Appellate Controller. When it was pointed out to him that so far maintainability of appeals before the Tribunal is concerned, the Tribunal is authorised to entertain an appeal against any order passed by the Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccountable person who is in appeal before the Tribunal. f. These two appeals were filed as early as on 10-2-1983 before the Tribunal and till today, i.e., 28-6-1984, when the appeals came for hearing, there is no petition filed by the revenue before the Appellate Controller regarding maintainability of the appeals at his stage in the form of rectification, etc. g. So far as challenge of the accountable person to file an appeal before the Tribunal is concerned, it is clear as per section 63 that the account able person and the revenue, if not satisfied with the correctness of any order passed by the Appellate Controller, could come before the Tribunal in second appeal within stipulated time under the Act. h. The revenue is not in ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the Tribunal confirmed those findings that the appeal was not maintainable and it was against the said Tribunal's decision that the accountable person went before the High Court that their Lordships adjudicated the issue and answered the question in favour of the revenue that the appeal was not maintainable. The facts of the instant case are quite different. 5. Regarding request of the revenue that the appeals may not be heard for the present as they propose to move a petition before the Appellate Controller, we are unable to accede to its request because, as above said, it was as early as on 23-12-1982 that the two orders were passed by the Appellate Controller and the revenue is too late in rising from its slumber as late as point of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ara 3 of her order as under : " 3. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. I have also perused the relevant penalty order. It is correct that Kuldip Parkash group of cases had made huge disclosures, due to which they had to deposit the tax amounting to about Rs. 18 lakhs. The tax in question was to be deposited by 31-3-1977, otherwise, the disclosure would have become invalid. As such, there is substantial truth in his contention that he was prevented due to financial stringencies from depositing the demand. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that the appellant was prevented due to reasonable cause in not paying the demand in question. However, since the demand has not been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
