KALATMAK Vs. COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REFUSAL to condone delay of about two years five months in filing the appeal before the First Appellate Authority has led to the filing of the present revision against the order of the Tribunal dated December 17, 2003 for the assessment year 1998 -99.

(2.) THE applicant is a partnership firm consisting of four persons, namely, Raj Kumar Paliwal, Dinesh Chand Paliwal, Ashok Kumar Paliwal and Smt. Hridesh Paliwal. An ex parte assessment order was passed against the firm by the assessing authority on March 30, 2001 and a demand of Rs. 1,29,000 towards the trade tax was created. It is alleged that the copy of the said ex parte assessment order was not served on any of the partners but was served on Shri Rajiv Paliwal who is not a partner of the firm. Before the authorities below only this much was pleaded that Shri Rajiv Paliwal is not a partner of the firm. But before this Court on an affidavit being filed on April 28, 2004 in pursuance of the order dated March 18, 2004 it has to be admitted that he is brother of the partners of the firm. The case of the dealer -applicant in brief for condonation of delay was that the business of the firm was being looked after by Shri Dinesh Chand Paliwal only and the rest of the partners had no concern. Shri Dinesh Chand Paliwal met with an accident on August 18, 1995 and since then he is confined to bed and has become invalid person even unable to speak and write and is a paralytic person. It appears that a medical certificate of doctor dated September 13, 2003 was also filed alongwith application for condonation of delay before the First Appellate Authority. In the application it has been further stated that the firm has been dissolved and Its liability and assets have been taken over by Shri Dinesh Chand Paliwal. In absence of service of the assessment order on Shri Dinesh Chand Paliwal the appeal could not be filed against the assessment order and hence the delay in filing the appeal.

(3.) HEARD the counsel for the parties and perused the record. There appears to be material contradiction in the report submitted by the Trade Tax Officer, Grade -II, Shikohabad, through letter dated September 11, 2003 and the certificate of the Assistant Commissioner, Trade Tax, dated September 25, 2003, regarding the service of the ex parte assessment order. It was submitted by the learned Counsel that the report of the Trade Tax Officer grade -II, Shikohabad, submitted through the letter dated September 11, 2003 was never confronted to the applicant. In the said report it is mentioned that the original assessment order dated March 30, 2001 was served on the dealer on April 7, 2002. On the other hand from the certificate dated September 25, 2003 of the Assistant Commissioner, Trade Tax, in the first sentence of the said certificate it is mentioned that the notice of the assessment year 1998 -99 was served on March 24, 2001 on Shri Raj Kumar Paliwal and the assessment order dated March 30, 2001 was served on April 7, 2001 on Shri Rajiv Paliwal. When the assessment order itself is dated March 30, 2001; where is a question of service of the notice of the assessment order on March 24, 2001 on Shri Raj Kumar Paliwal.