1976 (2) TMI 69

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....29-A(4) of the Act. The impugned appellate order is a common order governing 14 cases. Second appeals have been filed in all these cases and accordingly the present order will governed all the 14 appeals nos. 161-PBR/75 to 174/PBR/75. 2. In the course of the present appeals, two contentions have been raised that :- (i) the appeal should not have been summarily rejected; and (ii) the penalty imposed under s. 29-A of the Act was not justified and in any case the quantum of the penalty imposed is excessive. 3. In support of the contention that the appeal should not have been rejected summarily it was argued that though the initial order was made by the S.T.O on 9th Dec., 1974 it was communicated to the appellants only on 16th March....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ve the consignee full use of statutory period of six months. It was suggested that the same principle should be held applicable even in the present case. It will not be necessary to go into the question whether the decision of the High Court regarding the scope of s. 77 of the Indian Railways Act would also govern the scope of the provisions of r. 57(5) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Rules because appellants had not made any attempt to satisfy that first appellate Court that they had in fact received the impugned order only on 16th March, 1975. In fact, on application for condonation of delay was at all submitted by the appellants. Hence the appellate authority was fully justified in going by the orders-sheets maintained by the S.T.O which c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt case. 5. It was further argued that even if the summary rejection of the first appeal was justified, the Tribunal as the second appellant authority is not prevented from going into the merits of the appeal in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Melaram & Sons vs. CIT (Air 1956 SC 367). In Purushottamdas Mathuradas & Co. Dhmatari vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax (1968 MPLJ 943) a Division Bench of the M.P. High Court have also held that when an appeal is dismissed in default an appeal against such a dismissal could go into the facts of the case as well as the merits of the dismissal in default. It was argued that a penalty under s. 29-A of the Act was not attracted in the present case and that the quantum of penalty had been arbi....