Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 3]

Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)

Sanka Agencies vs Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes on 29 September, 2004

Equivalent citations: [2005]142STC496(AP)

Author: Bilal Nazki

Bench: Bilal Nazki

JUDGMENT
 

 Bilal Nazki, J.
 

1. Order dated May 17, 1996 passed in the revisions, by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad, has been challenged by way of these special appeals.

2. One of the grounds agitated to strike down the impugned order is that though the order is shown to have been passed on May 17, 1996, it was actually passed some time after May 17, 1996. Admittedly May 17, 1996 was the last date in view of the law of limitation, when the order could have been passed by the revisional authority. In this connection, the appellants submit that though the order is purported to have been passed on May 17, 1996, it was received by the appellants on November 14, 1996 and it has been despatched on November 1, 1996.

3. We have seen the record. Record also shows that while the impugned order bears the date May 17, 1996, the order was sent to the appellants by despatching it only on November 1, 1996. There is no explanation in the record nor any explanation has been given by the respondent, as no counter is filed. Therefore, there is strong apprehension that in order to give an impression that the impugned order was passed within the period of limitation, the order bears the dated May 17, 1996, whereas it has been passed much after that. In this connection, the learned Counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on a judgment of the honourable Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Ramakishtaiah & Co. [1994] 93 STC 406, wherein under similar circumstances, the Supreme Court held that in the absence of any explanation, whatsoever, for the delayed service on the petitioner, of the order, the court should presume that the order was not made on the date it was purported to have been made.

4. Following the same judgment, we allow these special appeals, set aside the order passed in revisions. No order as to costs. Since we are disposing of the matters on this short question, other questions raised, remain open.