- (1.) Heard counsel for the parties. The order under challenge is Annexure-7 dated 22-11-2011, The grievance of the petitioner is only to the extent that if the period of limitation is counted from the date of corrigendum order issued on 13-12-2010, which was served upon the petitioner on 22-12-2010, the petitioner's appeal comes within 180 days from the date of receipt of that order. The petitioner's grievance is that the petitioner's application for condonation of delay could have been considered, had the appeal been filed within 180 days. However, the appellate authority took the date, i.e. the date of original order dated 1-10-2010 and computed the limitation from the date of filing of the appeal, which is filed on 22nd June, 2011 and therefore, reach to the conclusion that the appeal is filed after inordinate delay of 237 days.
(2.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, if the total period consumed in filing the appeal is computed from the date of corrigendum order issued on 13-12-2010 and served upon the petitioner on 22-12-2010, the period consumed up to 21st June, 2011, is less than 180 days. It is submitted that this fact is mentioned in the order, Annexure-7, dated 22-11-2011 and therefore, firstly the said order had been passed in gross violation of the principle of natural justice without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and secondly error is apparent on the face of the order dated 22-11-2011.
(3.) Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the original order was passed on 1-10-2010 and appeal was filed on 22nd June, 2011 and therefore, the appellate authority rightly reached to the conclusion that the appeal was filed after 237 days from the date of the original order dated 1-10-2010. We considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and are of the considered opinion that by corrigendum order dated 13-12-2010, liability of the petitioner has substantially been changed and therefore, in facts of the case, the period of limitation should have been counted from the date of service of the corrigendum order upon the petitioner on 22-12-2010 and thus, in that situation the appellate authority should have held that the appeal was filed within 180 days from the date of receipt of the corrigendum order and therefore, it was within the extended period of limitation. Treating the appeal to be within 180 days, now the appellate authority may reconsider the prayer of condonation of delay in filing the appeal by the petitioner after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thus, the order dated 22-11-2011 is set aside. Now the matter may be considered by the appellate authority by 20th April, 2013.;