TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (2) TMI 1106
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... further application (Misc. W. 13136 of 2009) has been filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking for condonation of 137 days delay in preferring the appeal which is explained to be under the circumstances of the appellant on the premise that the developments were not to the knowledge of the appellant as the appellant who was holding the post of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes had relinquished the post on the day the learned single judge passed the impugned order and developments thereafter being not to the knowledge of the appellant and the appellant also being of the bona fide that the concerned persons will have taken commensurate action and ultimately though such action, it appears, was taken in fact by filing a Writ Appeal No. 3426 of 2009 against the very order though the appeal having came to be dismissed by this court in terms of the judgment dated November 6, 2009, it has now become imminent for the appellant to present the present appeal by seeking permission to prosecute the appeal and also for praying to condone the delay to seek redressal of the grievance which the appellant has and to get over the affectation that the appellant has suffered in terms of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve which are to be signed and issued by the concerned assessing authorities shall be countersigned by the jurisdictional Joint Commissioner (Admn.). 4.. This instructions will be scrupulously followed by all the Departmental officers." Indicating therein that refund orders involving a sum of Rs. 1 lakh and above which have to be signed by the concerned assessing authorities, shall be countersigned by the jurisdictional Joint Commissioner (Administration) and such instructions have to be scrupulously followed by all sub-ordinate officers and in the background of the circular being current and in operation on the day, there was no responsibility on the Commissioner, but entire responsibility was on the Joint Commissioner and therefore, the appellant could hot have been made personally liable to pay any cost which could be imposed by this court. Sri Sathyanarayana, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, would very vehemently oppose all prayers whether in the application or in the main appeal. The submission is that the respondent is not only harassed in causing refund legitimately due to the respondent, but the appellant is taking up the matter at personal level....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....antified at Rs. 5,000, payable by the Department and to be recovered from the salary of the first respondent." A perusal of this gives us the impression that if anyone has to be blamed in respect of the complaint of the writ petitioner and any responsibility, was to be fixed, it a can only be on the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and on no other person. Even if it was the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) who was passing an order, resulting in a refund to the assessee, if the order has not resulted in the actual refund of the amount, with no officer in the Commercial Taxes Department over and above the Commissioner, who can ensure that it is complied with, and as it is only the Commissioner who can ensure that the refund order is complied and not any other officer, if the order had not been complied and the petitioner had not realised the refund pursuant to the order, passed by the Joint Commissioner, as the administrative head of the Department of Commercial Taxes it is only the Commissioner who has to own up the responsibility and has to be looked up to for the enforcement of the refund order. To say that the Commissioner was not responsible is only to d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (Misc. W. 13137/09) and grant of stay (Misc. W. 13138/09) are dismissed. However, the appeal is dismissed on merits. Before parting, we will have to observe that the order sheet in this appeal, which is prepared by the registry, in the column meant for office note in the order sheet, does not make a mention of the factum of the very order appealed against in this appeal having been subject-matter in an earlier like appeal in W.A. No. 3426/2009 and that the appeal having already been dismissed in terms of judgment dated November 6, 2009. We fail to understand as to how a lapse of this nature can occur in the registry. It is very import that the registry should have realised this position and should have put up a commensurate note about the order sought to be appealed against in the present appeal that it was already subject-matter of the earlier appeal and as to whether it was affirmed or set aside in the earlier appeal. This will be a relevant input even at the threshold, during the examination of the present appeal, assuming that the present appeal is at the instance of a person who was not a party to the earlier proceedings or to the earlier appeal. It is not the rights....