PRESTIGE HOSIERIES Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE assessee is the petitioner. After the order was pronounced by the Appellate Assistant commissioner, the assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. Department sought to file application for enhancement. THEre was a delay of 209 days in filing the alleged affidavit stating that the "C" form was received in the office on December 16, 1991 and there has been administrative delay. Hence, it was prayed that the delay of 209 days should be condoned. THE Tribunal pointed out that the substantial explanation offered by the Additional State Representative is administrative delay. According to the Tribunal the delay has been substantially explained. It is also mentioned in the order of the Tribunal that that Additional State Representative in his argument explained as to how the delay has occurred, where and how. THE assessee filed a counter, pointing out two judgments in support of the contention that the delay should not be condoned. According to the Tribunal the said two decisions cited by the delay of 209 days in filing the enhancement petition was condoned. It is against that order, the present revision has been preferred by the assessee.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the department has not explained or shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 209 days in filing the enhancement petition. Merely stating that there was administrative delay would not go to slow that there was sufficient cause for filing the enhancement petition beyond the period of limitation.

(3.) WE have heard the rival submissions. Admittedly there was a delay of 209 days in filing the enhancement petition by the department. Under section 36(3-A) and in accordance with the proviso thereunder, the Tribunal has got the power to condone the delay if the enhancement petition is filed beyond 60 days, it sufficient cause is shown by the department.