Heard Sri B.K. Pandey, learned standing counsel for the applicant.
This revision has been filed under Section 58 of the U.P. Vat Act, 2008 beyond limitation by 146 days along a delay condonation application and affidavit. In the affidavit accompanying the delay condonation application, the delay has not been properly explained. No explanation has been offered except vague averments that after approval to file revision the typed copies of orders were received from Deputy Commissioner and thereafter the office of the Chief Standing Counsel was contacted, the file was allotted to the learned standing counsel who dictated the revision on the same day on 15.2.2008. Since the delay has not been explained and, as such, the delay cannot be condoned.
Apart from this, even on merit the revision is without substance. The assessing officer passed the assessment order dated 16.9.2005 for the assessment year 2002-03 determining the liability of tax of the respondent deeming him as manufacturer under Section 2 (ee) read with Section 3 AAAA of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. The first appellate authority allowed the appeal of the respondent recording finding of fact that no adverse material was found. The second appeal filed by the applicant was rejected by the Tribunal by a detailed order dated 11th April 2008 recording a finding of fact that no adverse material was found against the assessee with regard to evasion of tax and purchases from unregistered dealer as has been assumed by the assessing officer baselessly. The Tribunal also observed that there is not even a single instance of forged bill. The findings recorded by the first appellate authority and the Tribunal are findings of fact. Revision is wholly misconceived and, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.
In result, revision fails and is hereby dismissed on the grounds of delay as well as on merit both.
Order Date :- 7.11.2014 SKS