SAMBHAV INTERCHEM PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Returnable forthwith. At the instance and request of the counsel for the parties the petition is taken up for final hearing. This writ petition is a classic illustration of misunderstanding on the part of the advocate resulting into unnecessary complications for the litigant requiring him to pay or to comply with Central sales tax demand of more than Rs. 30 lacs. The complications arose on account of the advocate withdrawing the petitioner's second appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal from an ex parte final order of the first appellate authority. This withdrawal by the advocate was on the basis of his understanding that an earlier appeal from the interim order of the first appellate authority directing deposit had been partly allowed by reducing the deposit of tax from Rs. 10 lacs to Rs. 50,000 by the Sales Tax Tribunal would necessarily mean that the appeal before the first appellate authority would be heard on merits.

(2.) It is in the above facts that Mr. C.B. Thakkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that injustice has been caused to the petitioner in view of misunderstanding on the part of its lawyer. All that the petitioner seeks is an opportunity to present its case on merits before the second appellate authority against the ex parte order dated August 30, 2001 passed by the first appellate authority, viz., Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals).

(3.) As against the above Mrs. Uma Palsuledesai, learned counsel for the Revenue, objects to the grant of any relief to the petitioner. It is her submission that when the appeal being Appeal No. 725 of 2002 against the final order dated August 30, 2001 was withdrawn the petitioners were aware of the final order having been passed against them. Further, even the restoration application was filed beyond the period of limitation as provided in the Bombay Sales Tax Rules. In the circumstances there is no reason to entertain the petition.