Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


S/S Rama Electricals v. The Commissioner Of Trade Tax, Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 43 of 2004 [2007] RD-AH 16447 (8 October 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court no.22

TRADE TAX REVISION NO. (43) of 2004.

S/S Rama Electricals, Sonbhadra. Applicant


The Commissioner, Trade Tax,U.P., Lucknow. Opp.Party.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

Present revision under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 9th June, 2003 relating to the assessment year, 1992-93 by which the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. Against the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) dated 24.08.1999 which was served upon the applicant on 1.11.1999, applicant filed appeal before the Tribunal on 26.08.2000 beyond time along with application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. Limitation for filing the appeal before the Tribunal was upto 30th January, 2000. It was submitted that by mistake of the counsel, the limitation for filing of the appeal was calculated upto 28.02.2000 and the applicant was under the bonafide believe that the appeal could be filed by 28.08.2000. However, he has fallen ill on 22.08.2000 and was advised bed rest by the Doctor upto 26.08.2000. In support of his illness, medical certificate was filed. Applicant submitted that the delay in filing the appeal has been explained.

Heard Sri Alok Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nimai Dass, learned Standing Counsel.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the delay in filing the appeal has been explained. In support of his contention, medical certificate and the affidavit of the applicant as well as counsel were filed. He submitted that the explanation of the applicant has been rejected by the Tribunal without giving any reason. The order passed by the Tribunal is cryptic order and is liable to be set aside. It is settled principle of law that in the matter of condonation of delay pragmatic and liberal view should be taken and not pedantic. The explanation given by the applicant for the delay appears to be proper, therefore, the delay in filing the appeal is liable to be condoned.

In the result, revision is allowed. The order of the Tribunal is set aside. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Tribunal is directed to decide Second Appeal No. 52 of 2000 for the assessment year, 1992-93 on merit.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.