Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2017 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 1171 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxCondonation of delay in filing appeal - delay of 511 days - case of appellant is that there was no lack of bonafide on part of the applicant and the delay was caused due to the reasons beyond the control of the authorities - Revenue took a view that he assessee had filed a writ petition claiming refund arising out of the judgment of the Tribunal, since for a long time after the judgment was delivered, the authorities were not releasing the refund, the decision of the authorities to challenge the judgment of the Tribunal was clearly an afterthought - also the case of Revenue was that the delay is not properly explained. Held that: - after the judgment was delivered by the Tribunal and a copy thereof was available with the department, the procedure was undertaken to challenge the same before the High Court. However, the appeal could not be presented because of various reasons cited in the delay condonation application and further amplified in the additional affidavit. It is also pointed out that the papers were missing in the office of the Government Pleader for some time which also contributed partly to the delay. Since this explanation is forthcoming on oath and when the revenue effect involved in the Tax Appeals is substantial, we would accept the explanation and condone the delay rather than rejecting the Tax Appeals without entering into the merits, of course by awarding cost. A responsible officer of the level of Deputy Commissioner has stated on oath twice that upon receipt of the copy of the judgment of the Tribunal, proposal was moved for challenging the same and once the decision to challenge the same was taken, papers were supplied to the Government pleader for filing appeal. We do not have reason to doubt or dispute such averments made on oath. Merely because, may be due to miscommunication between the departments, the Court in the writ petition was not apprised about such pending proposal, would not mean that there was no such proposal pending. In the case of STATE OF GUJARAT Versus WELSPUN GUJARAT STAHL ROHREN LTD. [2013 (3) TMI 626 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] in somewhat similar background, the Court had condoned such delay in the process holding that adoption of strict standard of proof sometimes fail to protract public justice, and it would result in public mischief by skilful management of delay in the process of filing an appeal. Dealy condoned - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|