TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder section 80 of the Gujarat VAT Act , which attains finality once the Tribunal holds that the transaction is not the transfer of right to use the produce with which the respondent deals with and once this transactions are held not taxable under the Gujarat VAT Act, the State would be permanently debarred from the collecting tax from the respondent - explanation rendered in the form of administrative clearance and the consumption of time at the office of the Government Pleader for preferring appeal as also considering the substantial question of law raised in the present Tax Appeal, we are of the opinion that the issue involved would have far reaching effect as the determination order under section 80 of Gujarat VAT Act attains finality and thus it will be a permanent loss to the exchequer, if the order is not permitted to be challenged by way of Tax Appeal and it is not a question of any conjuncture or presumption to hold that large amount of the revenue is at stake. Resultantly, this Civil Application requires to be considered and is allowed. Considering the cumulative aspects discussed hereinabove, while condoning the delay of 1710 days, the applicant is directed to pay cost o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of law. He also urged that leniency be shown as delay is sufficiently explained. He further urged the Court that though it is a considerable amount of delay, the Court may not ignore the merit of the issue, which is likely to have a permanent adverse effect. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation Ltd. reported in [2011] 334 ITR 269(SC). He urged that any determination under section 80 attains finality, and therefore, those far reaching consequences will need to be regarded by the Court even at the time of considering the application for condonation of delay. 6. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Kazi appearing for the respondent assessee has vehemently and stressfully urged that that the delay is huge of nearly 5 years and this being only determinative order under section 80 of the Gujarat VAT Act and, therefore, there does not arise any question of loss to the exchequer. He further relied upon heavily on the decision of this Court rendered in the case of State of Gujarat passed in Tax Appeal No.247 of 2012 in Tax Appeal No.6612 of 2012 date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the date of the order of the Tribunal, till the sanction reached to the office of the Government Pleader, nearly the period of 4 months passed. However, thereafter for more than 3 years, papers continue to lie at the office of the Government Pleader and the appeal came to be filed only on 6.5.2013. It is explained by the applicant petitioner that though the Tax Appeal was required to be filed on or before 12.11.2008, due to the limitation of the administrative mechanism, the appeal was filed belatedly and delay of nearly 1710 days was caused. Mr. Gandhi, when specifically queried, admitted that due to inadvertence the delay was caused at the office of the Government Pleader only. 9. We are conscious of the fact that the sufficiency of the cause is intended to be advanced for the substantial justice, which of course as held by the Apex Court in the case of Balwant Sing (Dead) v. Jagdish Singh and Ors. reported in 2010 AIR SCW 4848 pre-supposes that there should be no negligence or inaction on the part of the applicant to whom want of bona fide is imputable. However, as also indicated in the said judgment, there are instances where the Court should condone the delay and should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . We may, however, notice that in such cases, the delay was inordinate and in majority of those cases, delay was more than 1200 days and in some cases, it crossed 1700 days. In the present case, however, we find for the reasons recorded thereinafter, such delay is required to be condoned. Firstly, in our opinion, the affidavit contents of which are noted above, renders reasonable explanation for such delay and gives reasons why appeal could not be presented within the prescribed time limit. It is pointed out that upon receipt of the judgment of the Tribunal, after obtaining opinion of the concerned officers, a decision was taken for filing the appeal. Approval from the Finance Department had thereafter, to be obtained. After obtaining such approval, necessary papers were handed over to the office of Government Pleader, Gujarat High Court. Due to heavy work load and shortage of staff, considerable time was consumed in the office of the Government Pleader in drafting such appeal. It is contended that the appeal involves substantial question of law. Simultaneously, we also notice that the duty amount involved in the present case is in excess of ₹ 6 Crores. In our opinio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l. Land Acquisition Officer (1988 (2) SCC 142), it was held that no general principle saving the party from all mistakes of its counsel could be laid. The expression sufficient cause must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally delays in preferring the appeals are required to be condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of delay. In litigations to which Government is a party, there is yet another aspect which, perhaps, cannot be ignored. If appeals brought by Government are lost for such defaults, no person is individually affected, but what, in the ultimate analysis, suffers is public interest. The decisions of Government are collective and institutional decisions and do not share the characteristics of decisions of private individuals. The law of limitation is, no doubt, the same for a private citizen as for governmental authorities. Government, like any other litigant must take responsibility for the acts, omissions of its officers. But a somewhat different complexion is imparted to the matter where Government makes out a case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mine the cause laid by the State vis-a-vis private litigant could be laid to prove strict standards of sufficient cause. The Government at appropriate level should constitute legal cells to examine the cases whether any legal principles are involved for decision by the courts or whether cases require adjustment and should authorise the officers to take a decision or give appropriate permission for settlement. In the event of decision to file appeal needed prompt action should be pursued by the officer responsible to file the appeal and he should be made personally responsible for lapses, if any. Equally, the State cannot be put on the same footing as an individual. The individual would always be quick in taking the decision whether he would pursue the remedy by way of an appeal or application since he is a person legally injured while State is an impersonal machinery working through its officers or servants. 16. The above position was highlighted in State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and Ors. (1996 (3) SCC 132); and Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition, Kerala v. K.V. Ayisumma (1996 (10) SCC 634). It was noted that adoption of strict standard of proof sometimes fail to protract pub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
