High Court Karnataka High Court

The State Of Karnataka vs M/S Richmond Distilleries on 3 March, 2009

Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs M/S Richmond Distilleries on 3 March, 2009
Author: Deepak Verma V.Jagannathan
 '  PASSEIIINV SI'A.NO. 2726/2004 on THE FILE OF THE
  , isE.ARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE,
 _ " P;amf'LY ALLOWING THE APPEAL.

iN THE men COURT 012' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Satcd the 3RD day of March 2009 

:PRESENT: w_ _ u
THE HC}N'BLE MR. JUSTICE : DEEPAK "7  "' '

A N 1:) % ff: .  " 'I A 
THE H()N'BLE MRJUSTICE ::§;}A'(i!:VN"NH}"'}--ifi§f€_V'  _ 

s.T.R.P.No,,13oI2(3<3§'"'-- _ ~,
inS.T.A.No.2726L;}_Q04 CF33)'    

BETWEEN :

THE STATE 01:' KARN_A'ITAK1?»  ' _
BANGALORE REPRESENTED B.YT"--mE 
SECRETARY, FINA?!-CEv.D'EPART'MEN§' "
V1DHANa..so--:_:DI~:A I   ' 
BANGAE;OR;E#Q1.v   _  " 
 "      PETITIONER

(By smt;  :§3i¢g.han,.'.Ad;d1; Gcvt;}Advocate)
AND ; V V' 4 4 .
M13' RICHMOIQI}  'ELLERIES
.-{P}LTE).", HAZJDIIV-ROAD

..  BAP+3GALOR§'3:,_ _
'   "" "  RESPONDENT

Tb*’§5R-PIVFEAVLEVD U/S 23 (3) 0? THE REST AC1′ A(;’rAiNS’I’
‘I’HE__ JUDGMEN’? AND ORDER DATED: 31.732007

THIS PETITION comma ON FOR ORDER$:V~’TifI~lI»_S}._vv
DAY, DEEPAK VERMA J, MADE THE FOLLOWIDEG; . .____j j__ A’

State has preferred this

Petition under Section V’
Tax Act, 1957 (for shotjt, ‘t;he”
dated 31.7.2007 Appellate
Tribunal, for the
V

._ -As of_fiee’§:uo’te, this revision is barred

by 201 order by the Tribufial

WaS«.i’fia’£S6d _____ M3:1.7.20O7. According to the

the information of the impugned

o:n£1 er by it only on 7.11.2007. Soon

the order passed by the ‘I’I’ibuna1,

Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

(Legej) opined for review on 9.11.2037. The fiie

‘4 therefore was referred to the Deputy Commissioner of

Commerciai Taxes (Legai).

Advocate Genera}, but the revision was filed.-aon

21.11.2008. Here also, dc-iay of more

was caused.

5. The sequence of eve:nts~’of

dates would clearly
inordinate delay at vagjous been
explaineci properly In any
case, a on the
State for eozidonafion of delay,
more élfi;aS Vnot been explained

satisfaetoiiiy :E?.I1Vdr.»tGV {:m;§;’e’s;’;ii;isfactioI1.

»’._§f”InA.the Iig1;i:t.V’of:ti1e aforesaid contention, Misc.

filed for condonation of ch:-lay is

fAecordi1181Ys the revision petition also

stafids

sd/~
judge

Sdl-4
Tudqe

Ifrvrz