2019 (11) TMI 1278

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2. This Tax Revision Application is admitted and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties taken up for final disposal forthwith. 3. The challenge in this Tax Revision Application is to the judgment and order dated 25/03/2019 made by Administrative Tribunal in Value Added Tax Appeal No.4/2018. By the impugned judgment and order, the Tribunal has held that since the appeal was instituted beyond the period of one year from the date of the receipt of the impugned order dated 31/03/2012 made by the Commercial Tax Officer, the same is barred by limitation and there was no provision to also consider the application for condonation of delay. 4. Section 35 of the Value Added Tax, 2005 (said Act), inter alia, provides that any per....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d, therefore, the delay should have been condoned. He relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Benarsi Krishna Committee & Ors. V/s. Karmyogi Shelters Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 9 SCC 496 to submit that service upon some representative or consultant or advocate is not proper service, when it comes to computation of period of limitation. 7. Shri Pangam, the learned Advocate General points out to the application seeking condonation of delay as absolutely vague. He submits that there is no categorical statement with regard to the status of the person upon whom the order was served. He points out that the explanation from 24/05/2012 till 26/04/2013 also does not make out any case for sufficient cause. He points out that the ta....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y was delivered on 24/05/2012. The appeal has been filed on 26/04/2013 i.e. within the period of one year from the date of receipt of the order by the petitioner. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority was duty bound to consider the cause shown by the petitioner and to determine whether the same constitutes sufficient cause. 12. Ordinarily, the matter was required to be remanded in order to enable the Appellate Authority to appreciate the cause shown. However, we find that the petitioner has stated that its old consultant was not keeping good health and suffering from heart ailment. The consultant, in fact, underwent bypass surgery as well. Accordingly, the papers were handed over to another consultant. However, this consultant also fell si....