Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER TRADE TAX versus S/S KALYAN STEEL UDYOG AGRA

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner Trade Tax v. S/S Kalyan Steel Udyog Agra - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 598 of 1999 [2005] RD-AH 7711 (16 December 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.(598) OF 1999

AND

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.(599) OF 1999

AND

CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY NO. OF 1999

The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow. ....Applicant

Versus

S/S Kalyan Steel Udyog, Agra. ....Opp. Party

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

Present revision under section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") beyond time by 1 year 69 days alongwith an application for condonation of delay. In the present revision order dated 15.05.1998 passed by Tribunal, which is alleged to have  been served upon the State Representative on 09.06.1998 has been challenged.  In the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, reason given are that State Representative had not sent the proposal for filing the revision to Commissioner, Trade Tax. Thereafter, Commissioner, Trade Tax got knowledge of the fact that in these order, Tribunal has restored its own order and again decided in favour of the dealer/opposite party, which is beyond the power of Tribunal. Therefore, Commissioner, Trade Tax vide its letter no.1991 dated 18.09.1999 issued the instructions to file the revision alongwith the application for condonation of delay. Thereafter, revision was filed on 15.11.1999 beyond time by 1 year and 69 days.

Heard learned Standing Counsel.

In my opinion, no valid reason has been given for condonation of delay. Delay for the period 09.06.1998 to 18.09.1999 has not been properly explained. Thus, delay is not liable to be condoned and application under section 5 of Limitation Act is accordingly, rejected. In view of rejection of application under section 5 of Limitation Act, revision is also liable to be rejected as barred by limitation. Thus, revision is dismissed as barred by limitation.

Both the revisions, fail and are accordingly, dismissed as barred by limitation.

Dt.16.12.2005

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.