AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the assessee under Section 36 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (in short "the Act") against the orders dated 23.3.2010 (Annexure A -1), dated 4.7.2011 (Annexure A -2) passed by the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) and dated 3.8.2012 (Annexure A -4) passed by the Haryana Tax Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in STA No. 216 of 2011 -12, for the assessment year 2006 -07, claiming the following substantial questions of law: - i) Whether the delay in filing appeal before the first appellate authority late by 17 days is so fatal to be dismissed as barred by limitation and particularly when apparently the counsel misbehaved by not appearing in the matter of the date of hearing? ii) Whether there is delay in filing appeal before the Haryana Tax Tribunal when admittedly the appeal was filed against certified copy of order applied and that appeal was filed within time from the receipt of the certified copy of the order? iii) Whether the Tribunal should not have given opportunity of being heard before concluding at the back of the assessee appellant that on certified copy some signature are there and whether those belong to the appellant or not? iv) Whether the Haryana Tax Tribunal should not have enquired from the record regarding the signature relied upon without making any enquiry? v) Whether the Tribunal should not have given the appellant an opportunity of filing application when it concluded beyond the Grounds of appeal filed? vi) Whether the Tribunal should have taken cognizance of decision of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Gheru Lal Bal Chand cited in CWP 6573 of 2007 dated 23.9.2011 keeping in view the merits of the case that the additional demand is only on account of input tax disallowing on the basis the seller did not discharge tax obligation?
(2.) THE facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal as narrated therein are that the appellant -M/s Standard Steels was engaged in the trading of Iron and Steel etc. It had been filing its returns and discharging tax obligations. The assessment for the year 2006 -07 was framed by the assessing authority vide order dated 23.3.2010 (Annexure A -1) making additional demand of Rs. 2,51,927/ -. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before respondent No.4 -Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals). As the appeal was barred by limitation, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed for condonation of 17 days' delay. Respondent No.4 vide order dated 4.7.2011 (Annexure A -2) rejected the application for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal being hit by limitation. Still dissatisfied with the order dated 4.7.2011 (Annexure A -2), the appellant filed an appeal (Annexure A -3) before the Tribunal who vide order dated 2012 (Annexure A -4) dismissed the appeal being barred by limitation. Hence, the present appeal. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) THE primary question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the delay of 17 days in filing the appeal before the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) and the delay of about one month in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was liable to be condoned in the facts and circumstances of the present case.;