2019 (4) TMI 1061

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ahima Jaiswal and Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsels for the revisionist and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. Brief facts of the case are that the revisionist company is a manufacturer of data projector machine and is carrying on the business of manufacture and sale/job work of different types of plant and machinery and parts thereof. The revisionist company is registered both under the U.P. VAT Act as well as under Central Sales Tax Act. The issue involved is about taxability on the projector machine/Plant and machinery which are manufactured and sold by the revisionist company. Claim of the revisionist is that items manufactured are taxable at the rate of 4% whereas the assessing authority has im....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....any. Against the order dated 23.07.2014 second appeals were filed beyond limitation. The second appeals filed under Section 57 of the Act before the Tribunal along with application for condonation of delay. In the application for condonation of delay, it is stated that the appeals were filed beyond time for the reason that the earlier counsel namely Sri Nitin Agarwal has neither appeared before the first appellate authority nor intimated about the fate of the first appeals. It is submitted that even the copies of the orders of first appellate authority were received by the counsel, however, no intimation was given by him to the revisionist company about the decision of the first appellate authority and that he has received the copies ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... facts, the Tribunal has also considered the judgments which are relied by the revisionist. The Department has relied the decision of this Court in the case of Writ Tax No. 1363 of 2018 (M/s Anil Enterprises vs. State of U.P.) dated 15.11.2018 which was also considered by the Tribunal and thereafter the delay condonation applications of the revisionist are rejected. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment of the Tribunal. The facts of the case of M/s Anil Enterprises (supra) are entirely different as of this case in hand. In the instant case the Tribunal has failed to consider the bonafide explanation offered by the revisionist that admittedly, there was no fault on the part of the revisionist and since....