Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S GOLDY TRADING CO versus COMMISSIONER TRADE TAX, U.P. LUKCNOW

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Goldy Trading Co v. Commissioner Trade Tax, U.P. Lukcnow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 2696 of 2004 [2005] RD-AH 510 (23 February 2005)

 

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

TRADE TAX REVISION NO. 2696 of 2004

AND

TRADE TAX REVISION NO. 2697 of 2004

 M/S Goldy Trading Co. Shahjahanpur.           Applicant

Versus

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

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

Present two revisions under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 27th July, 2004  relating to the assessment year, 1997-98 both under the U.P. Trade Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act.

Ex-parte assessment orders were passed on 21st March, 2000. Applicant filed applications under section 30 of the Act on 01.06.2000 which were rejected by the assessing authority on 27.07.2000. Applicant filed appeals before the first appellate authority which were also rejected on 27.08.2001. Applicant filed second appeals before the Tribunal which were rejected on 5th January, 2002. Thereafter, applicant filed appeals under section 9 of the Act against the ex-parte assessment orders dated 21st March, 2000 along with applications under section 5 of the Limitation Act. It appears that along with the memorandum of appeals, certified copy of the assessment orders dated 21st March, 2000 were not enclosed and therefore, the appeals were registered as defective appeals. On 6th February, 2002 appeals were rejected for want of certified copy of the orders and the applications under section 5 of the limitation Act were also rejected. Applicant filed appeals before the Tribunal which were rejected by the impugned order.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the certified copy of the order could not be submitted before the first appellate authority because it was not available and the same was provided to the applicant by the assessing authority on 16th March, 2002 and therefore, it could not be filed before the first appellate authority. He further submitted that proper and reasonable opportunity was not allowed by the first appellate authority for filing of certified copy of the order. Appeals were filed on 4th February, 2002 same were dismissed on 6th February, 2002 shows that the reasonable time was not allowed to file certified copy of the order. He further submitted that the first appellate authority has not properly considered the reason for delay in filing the appeals. He further submitted that the Tribunal has erred in observing that when the copy of the ex-parte assessment order was available on 16th March, 2002, there is no reason why it could not be filed before the first appellate authority, and no application under section 12-B of the Act was filed. Tribunal further held that the appeals were filed beyond time for which no proper explanation was given.

I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below.

In my view, first appellate authority has not allowed proper and reasonable time to the applicant to file certified copy of the orders. One day time was insufficient. Record shows that the certified copy of the orders were supplied on 16th March, 2002 and, therefore, it was not possible for the applicant to file certified copy of the orders on the date fixed as 6th February, 2002. Perusal of the order of the first appellate authority and  the Tribunal also shows that the explanation for delay in filing the appeals have not been properly considered. In the circumstances, I set aside the order of the Tribunal as well as order of the first appellate authority and the matter is remanded back to the first appellate authority with the direction to accept the certified copies of the orders and to decide the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act afresh.

In the result, both the revisions are allowed. Order of the Tribunal dated 27.07.2004 and the order of the first appellate authority dated 6th February, 2004 are set aside. Matter is remanded back to the first appellate authority to decide the appeals afresh in the light of the observations made above.

Dated. 23.02.2005.

VS.


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.