2025 (9) TMI 253

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The Petitioner challenges the order dated 27 January 2025 issued by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), Thane, dismissing the Petitioner's appeal against the Assistant Commissioner's order dated 30 March 2023 on the ground that it was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation of three months and the condonable period of one month. 4. The order against which the appeal was instituted before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) is dated 30 March 2023. The Petitioner contends that this order was neither uploaded on the portal nor communicated to the Petitioner at any time. After the Petitioner received a show cause notice regarding the subsequent period sometime in August 2023, the Petitioner, by co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... only on 23 December 2024, and the impugned order was made on 31 December 2024. He submitted that no effective opportunity was granted to the Petitioner to comment upon or dispute the correctness of the postal report, even though the report had several deficiencies. 8. The postal report, as noted above, is at Exhibit-P pages 319 to 321 of the paper book. The most crucial annexure to this postal report is on page 321, and the scanned copy of the same is reproduced below for the convenience of reference:- 9. The above annexure to the postal report, as submitted by Mr. Ajgaonkar, suggests that Figure 5 overwrites Figure 4. Mr. Ajgaonkar admitted that on 11 April 2023, the Petitioner received four documents. He referred to the fourth document....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mstantial evidence), we think that the benefit should have been extended to the Petitioner rather than to the Respondents. 12. The postal document shows some overwriting, giving the impression that only the four documents were delivered by the postal authorities and not the fifth document, which is the order dated 30 March 2023. Furthermore, the Petitioner's conduct in appealing the 4th document, a decision made by the Assistant Commissioner on the same issue, also indicates that the Petitioner was not otherwise inactive. If the Petitioner had indeed received the 5th document, that is, the order dated 30 March 2023, along with the other four documents on 11 April 2023, there would have been no reason for the Petitioner not to have appealed....