- (1.) THE assessee/opposite party has applied for the recall of the order dated 4.4.2012 on the ground that the revisionist wrongly stated in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application that the order of the tribunal dated 13.5.2011 was served upon it on 17.12.2011 whereas it was served on 26.5.2011 and thus got it condoned by showing the delay of 14 days only.
(2.) THE court vide the above order has condoned the delay in filing the revision and has admitted the revision on being satisfied that it involves a question of law which was also framed. THE revision was reported to be beyond time by 14 days on the date of its presentation by calculating the limitation from the date of the service of the copy of the order of the tribunal to be 17.12.2011 as stated in affidavit. THE only grievance of the assessee, opposite party is that the delay has been condoned on the basis of wrong facts. Section 58 of the U.P. VAT Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) under which the present revision has been preferred provides limitation of 90 days from the date of service of the order for filing the revision. THE manner of service of the order has been provided in Rule 63 (7) of the Rules framed under the Act. It provides that copy of every order passed under Section 55 and Section 57 of the Act shall be delivered or served to the parties concerned free of charge meaning thereby that the department is obliged to delivery or serve the copies of the orders upon the parties. THErefore the necessary corollary of it is that the limitation for filing the revision would commence from the date of delivery or service of the copy of the order by the department upon the parties. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the tribunal delivered or served copy of the order dated 13.5.2011 upon the revisionist on 17.12.2011. It is another thing that the copy of the said order was also made available to the revisionist by the assessee/opposite party on an earlier date but for the purposes of calculating the limitation the date on which the department has served the copy upon the revisionist alone would be relevant. The limitation is not to be counted from the date of knowledge. In view of the above, I do not find that there is any mis-statement of fact which may warrant recall of the above order. Moreover, when the counsel for the assessee/ opposite party does not dispute that the revision involves the question of law and the delay whether small or long has been condoned, no exception to it can be taken so as to recall the same as the endeavour of the Court is always to hear the parties on merits in stead of closing the doors of justice on technicalities or procedural aspects.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY, Recall Application No. 118600 of 2012 is rejected.;