C.W.P. No. 8817 of 2011 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 8817 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.5.2011 Kay Iron Works Private Limited .. Petitioner v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. A. K. Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioner. ... Rajesh Bindal J. The petitioner has approached this court challenging the order dated 10.1.2011, passed by Haryana Tax Tribunal at Chandigarh (for short, `the Tribunal'), whereby the application filed by the petitioner for re- admission of its appeal, which was dismissed in default on account of non- compliance of condition for entertainment of appeal on 25.1.2007, was dismissed. Briefly, the facts of the case are that assessment of the petitioner was framed on 8.1.1999. Demand of ` 1,52,415/- was raised. The case was taken up by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (I)-cum- Revisional Authority under Section 40 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 and vide order dated 31.5.2001, demand of ` 7,04,243/- was raised. Aggrieved against the order, the petitioner filed appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 13.11.2001, the prayer for entertainment of appeal without prior payment of tax was dismissed and the petitioner was directed to deposit the amount of additional demand by 5.2.2002. A review petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated C.W.P. No. 8817 of 2011 [ 2] 13.11.2001 was dismissed. Aggrieved against the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner filed C.W.P. No. 5446 of 2002 before this court which was dismissed on 4.4.2002 finding that the financial position of the petitioner was not such that he could not deposit the amount of the demand raised. It is pleaded that subsequent thereto, on 25.1.2007, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner in default on account of non-compliance of the condition put for entertainment of appeal. It is further pleaded that thereafter in an application filed by the petitioner for rectification before the Assessing Authority, the order was rectified and the demand was reduced from ` 7,04,243/- to ` 5,19,850/-. The amount of ` 2,81,700/- having already been deposited, demand notice for balance of ` 2,38,150/- was issued, which was deposited by the petitioner on 29.9.2008. Subsequent thereto, on 24.4.2009, application was filed before the Tribunal for revival of the appeal. The same having been dismissed on 10.1.2011, the petitioner is before this court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner being not in a position to comply with the order passed by the Tribunal for entertainment of appeal at the relevant time and the order having now been complied with, its appeal should be revived and the petitioner should not be deprived of its right of hearing on merits, merely because there was some delay in compliance of the order passed by the Tribunal putting conditions for entertainment of appeal. In support of the plea, reliance was placed upon Chander Prakash Goyal v. State of Haryana and others, (2006) 148 STC 75(SC) and C.W.P. No. 8128 of 2010 –M/s Jagdambey Elastomer Udyog v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 28.6.2010. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, we do not find any merit in the present petition. It was on 13.11.2001 that the Tribunal directed the petitioner to deposit the amount on or before 5.2.2002 as a condition precedent for entertainment of appeal. The review filed by the petitioner against the same was dismissed on 5.2.2002. The order was upheld by this court in C.W.P. No. 5446 of 2002 on 4.4.2002. On 10.4.2002, the petitioner filed application before the Assessing Authority for entertainment of his declaration forms. The same remained C.W.P. No. 8817 of 2011 [ 3] pending. As claimed, the same was decided on 26.9.2008. Prior thereto, the appeal filed by the petitioner stood dismissed in default by the Tribunal on 25.1.2007. Apparently, the petitioner did not make any effort to get his application for entertainment of declaration forms decided during this period. Even after the decision of the application and reduction in demand, the balance amount was paid on 29.9.2008. The application for revival of the appeal before the Tribunal was filed seven months thereafter on 24.4.2009. The same was rightly dismissed by the Tribunal, as at this belated stage the appeal could not be revived, especially considering the fact that earlier in a writ petition, the condition put in the order for entertainment of appeal had already been upheld by this Court. Entertainment of second petition at this stage would not be appropriate. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Acting Chief Justice 18.5.2011 mk