1999 (8) TMI 927

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....0 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Meerut, whereby it dismissed the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against an order dated May 3, 1986 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) on a first appeal preferred by the petitioner. 2.. The first appeal was decided by an order dated May 3, 1986, while the appeal before the Tribunal was filed after more than 2&f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 3, 1986 in appeal Nos. 1519 of 1985 and 1427 of 1984 were not served upon the deponent and the deponent was not aware regarding the disposal of his abovementioned appeal before January 10, 1989. 4.. That for the first time the first appellate order has been served on January 18, 1989." 3.. The Tribunal found that the copy of the appellate order was received by the appellant's counsel on May 13,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pplication and the affidavit it was not specifically stated that the said counsel did not inform the appellant about the decision of the appeal and did not deliver the copy of the appellate order to the appellant. It was also not explained why the dealer did not find out from the counsel about the fate of the appeal for such a long period and after the alleged knowledge on January 10, 1989 the pet....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f Sales Tax, U.P. 1987 UPTC 514 in which it was held that in view of the amendment, the copy of the order could not be served on a lawyer. Reliance is also placed on Jai Mata Santoshi Int Bhatta v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1991 UPTC 599 in which the same view was adopted following the case of Arjun Lal Upadhya 1987 UPTC 514. 7.. A perusal of the amended rule 77 would show that still an agent can....