2019 (11) TMI 21

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Tax<br>Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq And Mr. Justice Narendra Singh Dhaddha For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prateek Kedawat For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Vartika Mehra for Mr. Sandeep Pathak JUDGMENT This writ petition on behalf of petitioner Ataullah Construction Private Limited challenges the order dated 23.07.2019 (19.07.2019 mentioned in writ petition as Annexure- 6) of the Commissioner (Appeals),....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d penalty of Rs. 22,55,293/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. He however was not provided certified copy of the order in original dated 27.08.2018. The petitioner learnt about the aforesaid order only after he received a telephonic call for recovery of demand. He then came to know that a demand is outstanding. On verification of the record, the petitioner found that no such copy of the o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ommissioner, without going into the merits of the case, dismissed the same on the ground of limitation. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the respondent no.1 ought to have entertained his appeal on merits as he has also filed an application seeking condonation of delay giving all the aforesaid reasons. The Commissioner has mechanically rejected the appeal. Learned counsel for the res....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....opy of the order-inorigin was received by her only when the respondent called the petitioner for initiation of recovery proceedings. The detailed representation which the petitioner submitted to the respondent no.2 dated 23.04.2019 asserts that the order-in-original dated 27.08.2018 was not received by the petitioner. No doubt, the appeal filed by the petitioner was time barred but in the facts of....