Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S SATISH RADIOS versus THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/s Satish Radios v. The Commissioner of Sales Tax - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1703 of 1992 [2003] RD-AH 361 (29 September 2003)

 

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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

COURT NO.55

SALES TAX REVISION NO.1703 OF 1992

M/s Satish Radios ....Applicant

Versus

The Commissioner of Sales Tax ....Opp.Party

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

This revision is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 15.10.1992 for the assessment year 1987-88 by which Tribunal has rejected the appeal as barred by limitation. The first appellate order was served upon the counsel on 03.04.1992. The limitation for filing of appeal was 90 days and accordingly, it should have been filed by 02.07.1992  while it was filed on 08.10.1992 alongwith application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. In the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was stated that the order of the first appellate authority was served on the counsel and he was advised by his counsel, Sri R.K.Malik that limitation for filing the appeal was six months and under this bonafide belief, the appeal could be filed within 90 days. In support of averments made in the application, the affidavits of counsel Sri R.K.Malik and Sri Satish Kumar have been filed. Tribunal rejected the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act and refused to condone the delay. Tribunal has observed that counsel  has misdirected his client. Since the limitation from six months to 90 days was changed two years back. Therefore, it could not be believe that counsel has suggested that the limitation for filing the appeal was six months.

I have perused the order of Tribunal and application under Section 5 of Limitation Act and the affidavits of Sri R.K.Malik, Advocate and Sri Satish Kumar, Proprietor of the firm. In my view, Tribunal has taken a pedantic view while considering  the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act in the matter of condonation of delay. Tribunal should have taken a liberal and pragmatic view. Once the affidavit was filed by counsel in which he has admitted his mistake in giving a wrong advice, the reason was sufficient for condonation of delay. In the circumstances, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Tribunal is directed to decide the appeal on merit.

In the result, the revision is allowed and the order dated 15.10.1992 is set aside. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Tribunal is directed to decide the appeal on merits. Since the appeal is quite old, Tribunal is directed to decidethe appeal expeditiously.

Dt.29.09.2003

R./


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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