TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 714
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spondent to pass orders in accordance with law after granting an opportunity of being heard. 3. The petitioner is a registered distributor of M/s PEPSICO India Holdings Pvt. Limited, discharging applicable VAT and filing monthly returns regularly. On 28.11.2014, the petitioner received a notice, proposing to levy tax on the discount received at 14.5%, for which, a reply dated 15.12.2014 was submitted by the petitioner on merits and also requesting to provide an opportunity of being heard before passing any orders. However, the 2nd respondent, by order dated 21.01.2015 has passed the assessment order for the year 2013-14, confirming the proposal and also by imposing penalty. The petitioner, by their letter dated 02.02.2015, requested the 2n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also the Judgments of the various High Courts including this Court submitted that the delay can be condoned when it is substantiated with medical certificate proving the illness of the assessee during the relevant period. He would further submit that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Viijayanatabai Baburao Patil vs. Shantaram Baburao reported in (2002) ITR 798 (SC) has observed that in exercising discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach and a distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. He would further add that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acqu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and not due to certain malafide reason. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the delay has to be condoned and the matter has to be heard by the appellate authority on merits. 7. The learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), appearing for the respondents, on the other hand submitted that the revised assessment order was passed after considering the reply filed by the petitioner and the assessing officer has correctly reduced the tax and penalty and assessed only for the assessment year 2013-14. He would further add that since the appeal was filed beyond the limitation period, the appellate authority has rightly rejected the appeal. 8. This Court heard the submissions made by the learned counsel on either sid....