2003 (8) TMI 507

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ation therefore, was on May 29, 2003 but it was filed on July 28, 2003. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, against the order of penalty dated February 28, 2003 and it is pending for disposal. 3.. After filing the revision petition, the petitioner along with the representative of Promising Export Ltd., visited the office of the learned lawyer Mr. Sumit Kumar Chakraborty. Mr. Chakraborty on that day advised that the validity of seizure out of which the penalty proceeding was initiated cannot be challenged in the revision petition. The appropriate forum is the Tribunal. On being advised further by Mr. Chakroborty, the petitioner contacted his junior Advocate Mr. A.K. Sengupta on ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e the previous application filed by M/s. Promising Exports Ltd. was rejected without considering the merits of the application, the present application may be entertained under law after condoning delay. 6.. The learned State Representative submits that the seizure was made long before filing of this application and by an order dated July 24, 2003 this Tribunal considered the grounds for condonation in RN-238 of 2003 and rejected the prayer. There is actually no new bona fide ground for condonation of the delay caused by the petitioner. The application, therefore, is liable to be dismissed. 7.. It appears from the caption of the application for condonation that it was filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The provisions o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on for the purpose of challenging the validity of the seizure. The cause of action is the legal ground upon which the plaintiff maintains the action or suit. The cause of action, thus means all that bundle of facts which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if transversed in order to support his right to the judgment of the court. Thus, to prove that the seizure was illegal, it is not necessary to transverse the penalty proceedings initiated after the seizure. Therefore, the cause of action for filing this application actually arose immediate after the seizure was made by the respondent. Hence, the application absolutely is time barred. 10.. The contention of the learned lawyer with regard to the previous application file....