- (1.) This order will dispose of a bunch of appeals bearing VATAP Nos.33 to 35, 80 to 83, 85 and 87 to 96 of 2010, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein.
(2.) The appellants have approached this Court raising the following substantial questions of law:- i. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the order of the tribunal annexure 'A-6' is not a Non Speaking order ii. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Department has explained the delay by a 'sufficient cause' and has been able to show due diligence in perusing the remedy iii. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the decision of the Tribunal in K. Ajesh and Company which was not a binding precedent and was under challenged before the High Court by the department could form a 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay iv. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the prejudice being caused to the dealer by condonation of such a long delay was not factor to the considered. v. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case tribunal ought to considered the objection raised by the dealer against condoning the delay and should have decided the same vi. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case delay of 1485 days is not a long delay vii. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case decision of K. Ajesh came on 10.01.2005 and last notice for revision was received for 31.1.2005. Even sanction was given by the Govt. in December, 2006 still the appeals had been filed on 26.11.2007 after more than four years still it could be said the department had been diligent in perusing the remedy and delay should be condoned viii.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the tribunal is justified in granting a special status to State for condoning such a long delay
(3.) The detail of assessment years involved and the dates on which assessment orders were passed in the bunch of appeals are as under:- JUDGEMENT_294_LAWS(P&H)8_2016_1.html;