2020 (2) TMI 598

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....T) pertaining to the period 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011 whereby the appeal of the petitioner under Section 46 of the Madhya Pradesh VAT Act, 2002 was dismissed on the ground of maintainability. 2. Except unnecessary detail, the facts of the present case lie in narrow compass. Suffice it to say that the petitioner - M/s Sanwaria Agro Oils Limited filed two writ petitions before this Court forming subject matter of W.P. No.11706/2015 (pertaining to assessment year 01.04.2009 to 11.08.2012) and W.P. No.12013/2015 (relating to assessment year 2010- 2011) assailing the correctness of the orders of assessment and rejection of applications for correction of error and further claiming exemption under Notification No.35 dated 23.10.1981. The said writ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....refore, by way of amendment in the writ petition, the petitioner also sought quashment of the said order. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 10.01.2018 (Annexure P-8) with the observation that in case the petitioner makes necessary pre-deposit as prescribed by law within six weeks and thereafter files an application before the Appellate Board to take the appeal on record, the Appellate Board shall consider and take a decision thereon in accordance with law. Still, on failure to satisfy the condition of pre-deposit, the petitioner filed R.P. No.308/2018 seeking review of order passed in W.P. No.20069/2016. The review petition was disposed of vide order dated 23.03.2018 (Annexure P-9) and two weeks' time was further extended f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sioner of Central Excise, Kanpur, (2015) 10 SCC 629, to contend that in almost similar peculiar facts and circumstances, irrespective of limitation, the Tribunal was directed to accept pre-deposit amount paid by the appellant therein and decide the appeal on merit. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents-State argued in support of the impugned order and contended that judgment relied upon by the petitioner is distinguishable on facts and hence, no interference with the order passed by the Appellate Board is called for. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 8. As noted from the order impugned herein, the petitioner has already made the statutory compliance in terms of sub-section (6) of Section 46....