2015 (3) TMI 595

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r (Appeal), Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as the "JETC"). Counsel for the petitioner submits that as no sale has been proved or even took place within the State of Haryana, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer to assess the transport of machines from Gurgaon to Delhi to sale tax, is not warranted. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the machinery was imported into India, pursuant to a joint venture between the State Trading Corporation of India Limited (A Government of India undertaking), ITC Pirin Sofia, Bulgaria and M/s Liberty Footwear, Karnal with share holding of 40%, 40% and 20% respectively. The machinery was stored in the godown in Gurgaon as the project had to be executed at Gurgaon but on acc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and P-10 held that an appeal is maintainable against an order dismissing an application for review. Counsel for the petitioner prays that the impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be remitted to the Tribunal for adjudication afresh. Counsel for the revenue submits that the writ petition is mis-conceived. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Tribunal against, order dated 06.11.1990, passed by the JETC on 06.11.1990. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging this order. The writ petition was dismissed. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly dismissed the appeal against the order dismissing the application for review. We have heard counsel for the parties and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... condoning the delay or not, is a question of fact and can not be gone into in writ jurisdiction. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that ground for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was taken that the petitioner was wrongly advised by the counsel to file a review application against the order of the First Appellate Authority, it has not been shown to us that affidavit of the counsel, who had given such wrong advice, was filed before the appellate Authority. We find no ground to entertain this writ petition and dismiss the same. It may be further observed, as stated by counsel for the petitioner that an appeal has already been filed against the order rejecting the review application, that any observation made in....