Appeal allowed due to proper service date. Remanded for decision on merits. The appeal was allowed as the order was served on the proper officer on 29-1-2002, and not on 15-1-2001 as contended by the respondent. The case was ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Appeal allowed due to proper service date. Remanded for decision on merits.
The appeal was allowed as the order was served on the proper officer on 29-1-2002, and not on 15-1-2001 as contended by the respondent. The case was remanded for a decision on merits by the Commissioner (Appeals) as there was no valid reason to hold the appeal as time-barred.
Issues: Appeal dismissed as barred by time, necessity for condonation of delay, service of order on proper officer, validity of appeal timeline
In this case, the appeal was directed against the Order-in-Appeal dismissing the appeal as barred by time. The appellant argued that the appeal was filed within the stipulated time as the concerned unit received the copy of the Order on 29-1-2002 and the appeal was filed on 27-3-2002. On the other hand, the respondent contended that there was no necessity for the party to file an application for condonation of delay if the appeal was filed against the communication of the order on 29-1-2002. The respondent justified the dismissal of the appeal by stating that the Commissioner was not empowered to condone the delay considering the service of the earlier order on 15-1-2001 and the amendment to Section 35 of the Act. The appellant argued that the order should be served on the proper officer and since the Order was communicated to the proper officer only on 29-1-2002, the time bar was not applicable. The appellant referred to previous decisions to support their argument.
The Member (J) carefully considered the submissions and records. It was noted that the department had issued the order to the KSEB in general without specifying the concerned officer or division party before the adjudicating authority. The order was only served on the proper officer upon request on 29-1-2002. The Member (J) found that there was no valid reason to hold the appeal as time-barred, considering the service of the order on the proper officer. As the Commissioner (Appeals) had not decided the matter on merits, the case was remanded for a decision on merits and to provide an opportunity to the party. Therefore, the appeal was disposed of accordingly, allowing the matter to be decided on its merits by the Commissioner (Appeals).
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
