MOHANLAL CHEDILAL Vs. COMMISSIONER SALES TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against order dated 12th September, 1985, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow. By this order the second appeal filed by the revisionist has been dismissed as time-barred. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as follows:

(2.) The revisionist-firm, M/s. Mohanlal Chedilal, Foodgrains Merchants, Maigalganj, Lakhimpur Kheri, which is said to have been dissolved in the month of November, 1979, was carrying on business of foodgrains. In respect of assessment year 1979-80 returns were filed by the said firm (hereinafter referred to as the assessee). The accounted version of the assessee is said to have been accepted by the Sales Tax Officer. However, the Sales Tax Officer had found that in respect of purchase worth Rs. 3,80,385.22 made through commission agent form III-C(3) was not submitted; hence he found these to be taxable in the hands of the assessee. Thus, after including the said turnover in the declared turnover by the assessee, the Sales Tax Officer determined the taxable turnover of foodgrains at Rs. 4,45,494.00 and levied tax of Rs. 17,819.76. A true copy of the assessment order dated 29th November, 1982, passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Kheri, is annexed as annexure No. 1 to this revision. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the assessee preferred appeal No. 79 of 1983 under Section 9 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (for short the Act). This appeal was heard and dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, Sitapur, vide judgment and order dated 22nd October, 1983. Still feeling aggrieved by this order, the assessee-firm preferred second appeal under Section 10 of the Act before the Sales Tax Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow. This appeal against the order dated 22nd October, 1983, was filed on 21st June, 1984. There was, thus, a delay of fifty-two days in filing the said appeal. An application for condonation of delay was moved by the assessee and along with it medical certificate was also enclosed. It was asserted that since the firm was dissolved, and as such, Sri Chedi Lal, one of the partners, who was residing at Maigalganj, District Kheri, was doing Pairvi of the case. He could not prefer appeal as he was confined to bed being chronic case of tuberculosis. It was stated that he was under treatment of a local doctor at Maigalganj from 20th April, 1984, to 18th June, 1984. The Tribunal did not accept said application and held that medical certificate dated 18th June, 1984, does not inspire confidence, and, as such, refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal as time-barred. This order has been challenged in this revision.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri V.N. Tandan and the learned standing counsel appearing for the opposite party.