Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2022 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 1502 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxCondonation of delay of 530 days in filing the appeal of revenue before Tribunal - Sufficient reasons for delay or not - contrary to the decision of Supreme Court in the matter of Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. [2012 (4) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT] or not - HELD THAT:- The delay of 530 days has been explained on wholly vague and generic grounds of - (i) shortage of manpower and; (ii) excess work. In the affidavit of the assessing officer, besides the above, it was further stated, the senior assistant had been assigned B.L.O. duty, resulting in the delay. Neither the application nor the affidavit bring out necessary facts pertaining to shortage of manpower claimed or the excess of work claimed. Then, the date of election and date of assignment of duty of the senior assistant has also not been disclosed. In any case, in the context of delay of 530 days, it is wholly unacceptable that such delay could have been caused owing to conduct of election or assignment on the election duty to certain officials. That explanation is inherently inadequate. The nature of explanation remains ever relevant and primary for consideration of the Court. It must inspire confidence as to truthfulness and completeness as to the delay sought to be explained. Only then, the Court may act and condone the delay. Where however, as in the instant case, that explanation is found to be lacking in particulars and substance as also intent, the Court may never act on the same. The law in that regard is fairly well settled. The Supreme Court in Postmaster General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr., [2012 (4) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT], has held The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Seen in that light, the explanation furnished by the revenue was neither bona fide nor it appears to be otherwise sufficient or such as may have been relied by the Tribunal to condone the delay of 530 days. The present revision is allowed. Question of law, framed above, is answered in the negative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
|