TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the Department's appeal was validly authorised under Section 35-B(2) when the proposal originated from a subordinate officer but was approved by the Collector. (ii) Whether the appeal was barred by limitation under Section 35-B(3) on the facts relating to communication of the order.
Issue (i): Whether the Department's appeal was validly authorised under Section 35-B(2) when the proposal originated from a subordinate officer but was approved by the Collector.
Analysis: The statutory requirement is that the decision to file the appeal must be that of the Collector. The provision does not require that the entire process, including the initial examination of the order, must begin and end with the Collector alone. Where a subordinate officer prepares the proposal and the Collector, after perusal of the file and notes, applies his mind and concurs with the proposal, the decision remains one taken by the Collector for purposes of the provision.
Conclusion: The objection to authorisation under Section 35-B(2) was rejected and the appeal was held to be properly authorised.
Issue (ii): Whether the appeal was barred by limitation under Section 35-B(3) on the facts relating to communication of the order.
Analysis: Limitation begins from communication of the order to the Collector as contemplated by the statutory scheme. On the material accepted by the Tribunal, the order was not shown to have been directly communicated to the Collector in a manner that would start limitation. In the absence of proof of such direct communication, the Tribunal held that limitation had not commenced to run against the Department's appeal.
Conclusion: The objection based on limitation was rejected and no condonation of delay was required.
Final Conclusion: Both preliminary objections failed, and the appeal was left to proceed to hearing on merits.
Ratio Decidendi: For departmental appeals, compliance with the statutory requirement is satisfied when the Collector is the person who ultimately decides to file the appeal, even if the proposal originated from a subordinate officer; limitation runs only from the statutory communication of the order to the Collector.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
