TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Delay Excused: Court Permits Appeal to Proceed, Citing Tribunal's Premature Dismissal Under Punjab VAT Act.</h1> <h3>M/s. VE Commercial Vehicles Ltd., M/s Eicher Motors Ltd., M/s B.L. Mehta Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Versus U.T. Chandigarh & another</h3> The HC allowed the condonation of a 58-day delay in filing an appeal and permitted the case to proceed. The court found that the Tribunal erred in ... Extension of period of limitation of assessment orders - Anti dated orders - HELD THAT:- The actual provision would be Section 62 of the Act under which the said order could be challenged. A perusal of the appeal filed would go on to show that various issues were raised including the fact whether the orders passed by the Commissioner were ante-dated only for the purpose of saving the limitation. The fact that notice had not been issued and whether the limitation would be extended in a wholesale manner or opportunity of hearing had to be granted to the concerned persons was the issue to be decided by the Tribunal. The substantial question thus which was to be considered by the Tribunal was brushed aside solely on the ground that reference had been made to Section 63 of the Act in the heading of the appeal. It is settled principle that the heading of the appeal or an application is not what is to be considered by the Appellate Authority which is a creature of statute but it has to decide substantially the issue which has been raised before it. Merely on account of the fact that the assessment order was also challenged on merits was not a ground to reject the case on technicalities that a wrong section had been mentioned. Resultantly, petitions are liable to be allowed on this ground itself and the matter is liable to be remanded to the Tribunal. The valuable rights of the appellant has thus been taken away as decision had not been taken on merits regarding the issue of extension of limitation by the Commissioner which can be challenged by filing an appeal under Section 62(1)(c) of the Act. Resultantly, the order of the Tribunal dated 04.11.2019 also cannot be sustained on this ground that firstly it has to decide the first 3 appeals on the question whether the extension could be granted by the Commissioner but it has put the cart before the horse. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal to decide the issues in a consolidated manner on merits - Appeal allowed. Issues involved:The judgment involves condonation of delay in filing appeal, interpretation of provisions under Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005, and the correctness of decisions made by the Tribunal.Condonation of Delay:The application for condonation of delay of 58 days in filing the appeal was allowed by the High Court. The delay was condoned based on the averments made in the application, duly supported by an affidavit. This decision disposed of the application, allowing the appeal to proceed.Interpretation of Provisions under Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005:The appellant filed an appeal under Section 68 of the Act against orders passed by the Excise & Taxation Commissioner. The Commissioner had extended the period of limitation for Assessment Years 2005-06 and 2006-07. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals citing non-maintainability under Section 63 of the Act. However, the High Court opined that the correct provision for challenging the orders was Section 62 of the Act. The Court emphasized that the substance of the issue raised in the appeal should be considered, rather than technicalities regarding the section mentioned.Correctness of Tribunal's Decisions:The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeals based on technical grounds was found to be incorrect. The High Court held that the appellant had a remedy under Section 62(1)(c) of the Act to challenge the orders. The Tribunal's decision on the extension of limitation by the Commissioner was deemed premature, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for a consolidated consideration of the appeals on their merits under Section 62(1)(c) of the Act.Separate Judgment by Judges:The judgment was delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Lapita Banerji of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
