2012 (8) TMI 883 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Condonation of delay - whether there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeals which was belated? - Held that - No ground for condonation of colossal delay of 789 days has been made out. The reason advanced for condonation of delay is that Shri Avinash Chander Sharma son of Shri Lal Chand Paniwal who is the Director of the assessee-company was looking after the taxation matters of the company who had fallen ill but affidavit of the Director filed does not specify the period of ailment and the nature of illness. Further no details and supporting material had been produced to substantiate such a plea. In the absence of definite averments and substantive proof the ground taken for condonation of delay does not inspire confidence. Such a general plea without there being any material cannot be accepted and could be raised in all cases. The appellant was required to act with care and due diligence in pursuing litigation which is absent in the present case. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeals before the first appellate authority, whether sufficient cause for condonation of delay exists.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to two Value Added Tax Appeals (VATAP Nos. 3 and 5 of 2012) before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The appeals were filed under section 36 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The main issue in consideration was the delay in filing the appeals before the first appellate authority. In VATAP No. 3 of 2012, there was a delay of 789 days, and in VATAP No. 5 of 2012, there was a delay of 654 days. The facts of the case were taken from VATAP No. 3 of 2012 for brevity.

The assessment for the year 2003-04 revealed an excess provisional refund granted to the assessee-dealer, amounting to Rs. 28,06,654. Subsequently, interest of Rs. 17,82,168 was charged on the excess refund. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal as time-barred due to a delay of 789 days. The Tribunal upheld this decision, leading to the present appeal before the High Court.

The key question before the court was whether there existed sufficient cause for condonation of the substantial delays in filing the appeals. The court analyzed the principles of condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, emphasizing that the term 'sufficient cause' should aim at doing substantial justice between the parties. The court highlighted that the existence of sufficient cause is a fact-specific inquiry and cannot be determined by a rigid standard.

Upon examination, the court found that no grounds were established for condoning the significant delay of 789 days. The reason provided for the delay was the illness of the person handling taxation matters for the company, resulting in forgetfulness to file the appeal. However, the court noted that the affidavit did not specify the duration or nature of the illness, and no supporting evidence was presented. The court emphasized the requirement for due diligence in pursuing litigation, which was lacking in the present case.

Consequently, the court held that no substantial question of law arose in the appeal, and there was no merit in the appeals. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed by the court.