AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H. Billappa, J.—The learned AGA is directed to take notice for respondents. In these writ petitions under articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question, the order dated 25.06.2012, passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (Appeals)-2, Bangalore, in VAT-AP. No. 994 to 997/ 10-11 vide Annexure-G.
By the impugned order at Annexure-G, the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (Appeals)-2, Bangalore, has rejected the appeal as ''barred-by-time''. Therefore, these writ petitions.
The petitioner is a Private Limited Company and a registered dealer engaged in the business of sale of Chemicals. The petitioner has filed returns in VAAAT-100 declaring the purchase made from the local registered dealer as well as from outside the state.
The reassessment order was passed by the respondent No. 2, on 15.04.2010, for the period 2006-07. For the period 2007-08 the reassessment has been passed on 19.4.2010. The petitioner preferred appeals challenging the reassessment order in VAT-AP. No. 994 to 997/10-11. The Appellate Authority by its order dated 15.06.2012 has rejected the appeals as ''barred-by-time ''. Therefore, these writ petitions.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order cannot be sustainable in law. He also submitted that without notifying the defect, the impugned order has been passed. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustainable in law.
The learned AGA supported the impugned order.
I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has preferred appeals challenging the reassessment orders dated 15.04.2010 and 19.04.2010. As there was delay, the petitioner has filed application to condone the delay. The application was not supported by an affidavit. Therefore, the Appellate Authority has rejected the appeals as ''barred-by-time''. The petitioner contends that the defect was not notified. In the circumstance, it is appropriate to permit the petitioner to file necessary affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay. However, it will subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with the second respondent.
Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned order passed by respondent " No. 1 in VAT-AP. No. 994 to 997/10-11 is hereby quashed. The petitioner is permitted to file necessary affidavit in support of the application for condone of delay within two weeks from today. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 shall consider the matter on merits. The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with second respondent within two weeks from today which will be subject to the result of the appeal.