2018 (8) TMI 66 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI – Condonation of delay in filing appeal – Validity of assessment orders – Form 18 declarations produced by the assessee being not genuine – concessional rate of tax – Held that:- We need not look into the facts or the sustainability of Exhibit P4 as of now, since the appellant is guilty of laches on account of the long delay. The appellant is said to have filed an appeal itself in the year 2011, belatedly too. The pre-condition of deposit of the tax demanded was also not satisfied. The appellant also did not choose to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution at that point – The writ petition itself is filed in the year 2018.
–
The appeal cannot be entertained and is thus dismis
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
was brought into effect in 2007 and the subject assessments were completed in 2010. 2. The assessment orders are of the years 2002-03 and 2003-04. The allegation against the appellant-assessee was also of Form 18 declarations produced by the assessee being not genuine and that the appellant could not have availed the concessional rate of tax. On assessments being completed, there was a belated appeal filed before the Tribunal in the year 2013. The provision under Section 17D required the assessment to be completed by a team of officers, called Fast Track Team , and an appeal is provided only to the Tribunal. The appeal also had a pre-condition of deposit of the tax demanded on assessment. These were measures brought out only to specificall
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
he learned Government Pleader, however, would point out that the mere fact that the other dealer had accounted the transaction would not absolve the appellant from the liability especially since the allegation was of the Form 18 produced being bogus insofar as the transactions not having actually happened and the goods moved in accordance with the said documents. 4. We need not look into the facts or the sustainability of Exhibit P4 as of now, since the appellant is guilty of laches on account of the long delay. The appellant is said to have filed an appeal itself in the year 2011, belatedly too. The pre-condition of deposit of the tax demanded was also not satisfied. The appellant also did not choose to approach this Court under Article 22
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =