SUPER PLAST CONTAINERS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) <DJG>H.N.DEVANI, J.</DJG> . In these appeals, the appellant has challenged consolidated order dated 27th November, 2008 made by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal (the Tribunal) in Second Appeals preferred by the appellant as well as consolidated order dated 09th March, 2009 made in Rectification Applications made by the appellant. Since all the appeals involve common questions of fact and law, the same were taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The facts stated briefly are that against assessment order dated 31st July, 1997 made by the Sales Tax Officer, the appellant preferred an appeal under section 65 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeal-6) (hereinafter referred to as the first appellate authority) who, vide order dated 14th August, 1998, dismissed the appeal. According to the appellant, the order of the first appellate authority was served upon the appellant for the first time only on 09th June, 2008, accordingly, the appellant preferred second appeals before the Tribunal on 19th June, 2008. The Tribunal vide the impugned order dated 27th November, 2008 allowed the appeals and remanded the matter to the first appellate authority on condition of payment of Rs.25 lakhs latest by 28th February, 2009. The Tribunal also directed the appellant to pay an additional amount of Rs.1 lakh as cost for condonation of delay latest by 28th February, 2009. Subsequently, the appellant moved rectification applications before the Tribunal praying that since the appeal orders were served on the appellant only on 09th June, 2008 and the second appeals were filed on 19th June, 2008, the second appeals had been filed within time and as such no cost/penalty was payable by the appellant. It was also prayed that the amount of tax payable by the appellant be fixed at not more than Rs.7,23,830/- instead of Rs.25 lakhs as determined earlier. Vide the impugned order dated 09th March, 2009, the said rectification applications were disallowed and disposed of accordingly.

(3.) Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties.