Allahabad High Court
M/S Satyanarain Keshavram ... vs Commissioner Commercial Tax ... on 20 August, 2014
Bench: B. Amit Sthalekar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?AFR
Court No. - 21
Case :- TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 92 of 2014
Applicant :- M/S Satyanarain Keshavram Pvt.Ltd.Lucknow Throu.Its Dir.
Opposite Party :- Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P.Lucknow
Counsel for Applicant :- Ratnesh Chandra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
Heard Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Sanjeev Shankhdhar, learned counsel for the respondents.
This revision has been filed by the revisionist Company against the judgment of the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Lucknow dated 07.05.2014 whereby the Company's appeal against the order of the Additional Commissioner Grade-II (Appeal) dated 04.05.2013 has been rejected on grounds of being barred by limitation for the assessment year 2010-11.
Briefly stated the facts are that for the assessment year 2010-11, the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Lucknow imposed a penalty upon the revisionist for Rs.3,10,000/- out of which a sum of Rs. 1,04,625/- was deposited by the revisionist on 07.09.2010 and for the remaining amount of Rs.2,05,375/-, 30 days time was granted to the revisionist to deposit the same.
Aggrieved by the order dated 03.02.2011 the revisionist filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Grade-II (Appeal). This appeal was barred by time by 713 days and was accordingly dismissed as being time barred by order dated 04.05.2013. Aggrieved the petitioner filed second appeal before the Commercial Tax Tribunal, which has also rejected the appeal of the petitioner by the order dated 07.05.2014.
In the affidavit filed in support of the revision delay in filing the appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) has been sought to be explained in paragraphs 12 and 13 by stating that the documents relating to the filing of the appeal were handed over to one Sri G.L. Joshi, Advocate, who got it prepared and also got it signed from the revisionist and since the appeals are normally take up for hearing after two years the revisionist inquired from Sri G.L. Joshi but thereupon he was informed that the appeal could not be filed and he has lost the appeal as well as the penalty order. The limitation for filing the appeal is 30 days. On what date the revisionist Company approached Sri G.L. Joshi, Advocate has not been stated in the affidavit. From the appellate order passed by the Additional Commissioner (appeals) it is noticed that at the time of arguments one Sri S.C. Rastogi, Advocate had appeared on behalf of the Company. Sri G.L. Joshi, who was the only person who could have stated before the appellate authority that he has lost the appeal as well as the penalty order, did not appear. Before the Tribunal also Sri G.L. Joshi did not appear and it is Sri S.C. Rastogi, who appeared for the revisionist Company. The delay in filing the appeal is 713 days. The Tribunal has dismissed the appeal relying upon two decisions of this Court in the case of Anand Pal Tomar Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, 1997 U.P.T.C. 919 and M/s Sree Chemicals, Ghazibad Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax, 2006 STI 327.
Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the revisionist on the other hand has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in VSTI 2007 Allahabad 40, M/s/ P.I. Industries Ltd., Ghaziabad Vs. Commissioner Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow. In the said case the delay was of 287 days and on the facts of that case the delay had been adequately explained, therefore, the Court relying upon several decisions of the Supreme Court held that while explaining the delay a pedantic approach should not have been adopted and it is not that the each days delay or each minutes delay must be explained.
In my opinion the judgment of P.I. Industries Ltd. (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case. The revisionist has himself not stated anywhere in his affidavit as to on what date he approached his counsel Sri G.L. Joshi to make inquiries and all that has been stated in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the affidavit is that since appeals normally take two years to be decided, therefore, the revisionist made enquiries from his counsel Sri G.L. Joshi, Advocate, who informed that the appeal as well as the penalty order had been lost. This means that the Company did not bother to contact its counsel for atleast two years.
Besides, for the averments made in paragraphs 12 and 13, the Court only has the one sided version of the revisionist. Sri G.L. Joshi himself did not appear before the appellate authority, Additional Commissioner (Appeals) and he alone could have stated this fact before the Appellate Authority. Even before the Tribunal, Sri G.L. Joshi did not appear. Therefore, in my opinion delay in the case has not been satisfactorily explained except to lay the blame on the shoulders of Sri G.L. Joshi, Advocate and I am not inclined to condone the delay of 713 days in filing the revision.
I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of the Tribunal dated 07.05.2014. Revision is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 20.8.2014
N Tiwari
