TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (7) TMI 657
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was dismissed being barred by limitation. The Tribunal dismissed the second appeal on October 10, 1995. A revision filed before this Court was also dismissed by the division Bench, on September 15, 1997*. The contention that there was sufficient cause for delay was not accepted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no merger of the order because the first appellate authority or the Tribunal or the High Court has not examined the matter on merit and the appeal was held as not maintainable being barred by limitation. Reliance is placed on the following judgments: (a) Babu Ram Narain Parshad v. Sales Tax Tribunal [1987] 64 STC 468 (P&H), wherein it was held that doctrine of merger is applicable only when the appellate ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccount it was considered to be denial of reasonable opportunity. Reliance is also placed on the decision in the case of A.C. Patel v. N.N. Majmudar, Income-tax Officer [1978] 114 ITR 1 (Guj), wherein it was held that if any Income-tax Officer has acted beyond jurisdiction, High Court has the jurisdiction to give the relief and delay in presenting the petition will not affect the relief claimed. 3.. The learned High Court Government Pleader placed reliance on the judgment given in the case of Behubar Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Taxes [1957] Reported in [1998] 110 STC 195 (Calicut Trading Co. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes). 8 STC 417 (Assam); AIR 1957 Assam 61 wherein it was observed that the High Court can always interfere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appeal within 30 days from the date of service of the assessment order. If there is sufficient cause for delay, the appellate authority has the jurisdiction to condone the same. If the delay is not condoned then against such an order an appeal lies to the Appellate Tribunal, which may also examine the matter as to whether there are sufficient grounds for condonation of delay. Even the remedy of revision could be availed of in this Court. After availing all these remedies the contention which is now raised is that there is no merger of the order of assessment with the order of the appellate authority and, therefore, the remedy under article 226 of the Constitution can be availed of. In this regard it may be observed that various judg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s filed belatedly, then during the pendency of the said appeal, the writ could not have been entertained because the court would come to the conclusion that the matter is pending before the appellate authority and hence no interference is called for. Even after the disposal of the appeal there would have been a position of not entertaining the writ petition as the remedy of second appeal lies under the Act. So is the filing of revision under the KST Act. Thus from the due date of filing of the appeal, till the disposal of the revision by the High Court, writ could not have been entertained. After the disposal of the revision by the High Court, whether the writ could be entertained or not, as observed above it could be entertained where the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e seized record and the books of account produced, is always a question of fact. Initially, the petitioner prayed for time to file the objections on January 10, 1995. Thereafter M/s. Vasan Associates appeared and filed their return and sought time till February 20, 1995. Objections dated February 16, 1995 were received by the assessing authority and as such it cannot be considered that principles of natural justice have been violated simply because the copies of the seized documents were not delivered to the petitioner. The petitioner was not required to produce the documents which were in possession of the department as was the case in Basappa Son & Co. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1975] 35 STC 483 (Kar). Petitioner has not raised the object....