2015 (3) TMI 437

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ojan J. Vathikulam,SC,C. B JUDGMENT The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P4 conditional order of stay passed by the 1st respondent Tribunal, in an appeal that was preferred by the petitioner against Ext.P1 order of the 2nd respondent.  2. The main ground of challenge against Ext.P4 is that, while the petitioner had raised a specific contention regarding the extended per....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of limitation, and thereafter proceeded to pass orders in the stay petition assuming that the 2nd respondent had found the existence of suppression/wilful misrepresentation to justify the invocation of the larger period of limitation in the case at hand.  It is also pointed out that the 1st repondent Tribunal ought to have considered its own decision in H.L.Passey Engineering Pvt.Ltd. v.s Com....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....73 (1) is not invokable, there will be no case for imposition of penalty under Section 78 as the condition for imposing penalty under Section 78 and the conditions for invoking longer limitation period under proviso to Section 73 (1) are identical." Counsel for the petitioner contends that Ext.P4 order is vitiated by a patent non application of mind and ought to be set aside by this Court.&nbsp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ations therein, with regard to the establishment of the fact of suppression/wilful misrepresentation against the petitioner assessee, are not borne out by anything on record. A perusal of Ext.P1 order would clearly indicate that there is no express finding by the 2nd respondent on the aspect of existence of any suppression/wilful misrepresentation, that could justify the invocation of the larger p....