TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 550X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In the present case, apart from six months prescribed limitation, there is delay of 505 days, the explanation put forth is not worth acceptance. Appeal dismissed. - VATAP No. 198 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 15-1-2020 - Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari And Mr. Justice Avneesh Jhingan For the Appellant : Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate JUDGEMENT AVNEESH JHINGAN, J. The appeal under Section 36 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for brevity, 'the 2003 Act') is filed against order dated 5.32.2019 passed by Haryana Tax Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short, 'the Tribunal') dismissing the review application as time-barred. In the appeal, following substantial questions of law have been claimed: (i) Whether on the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 27.2.2017 in terms of order dated 14.2.2017. The appeals were disposed of in the presence of counsel for the appellant. The appellant posed no challenge to order dated 27.2.2017 disposing of the appeals in terms of the order dated 14.2.2017 for the assessment year 2003-04. However, after receipt of notice dated 1.8.2018 issued by the Assessing Authority to decide the remand proceedings, the appellant filed review application on 7.2.2019 accompanied by an application for condonation of delay of 505 days. The Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay and dismissed the review application as time-barred, hence the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in not condoning the dela ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me terms. There is no explanation forth coming for not filing the review application within the limitation or for condonation of delay of 505 days. The only ground taken is that it was only after receipt of notice in the remand proceedings that it was realised that the issue of not finalising the assessment within the reasonable time was not pressed in the appeal. The explanation put forth is not sufficient for condoning the delay, rather it establishes negligence on the part of the appellant. The reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay are reproduced below: 3. That the delay in the present case has occurred for the reason that the appeal for the year in consideration was decided along with bunch of appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inate delay. The Supreme Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another, 2010(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 284 held as under: 8. We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. If the Court finds that there has been no negligence on the part of the applicant and the cause shown for the delay does not lack bona fides, then it may condone the delay. If, on the other hand, the explanation given by the applicant is found to be concocted or he is thoroughly negligent in prosecuting his cause, then it would be a legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone the delay. In cases involving the State and its agencies/instrumentalities, the Court can take note of the fact that sufficient time is taken in the decision making process but no premium can be given for total lethargy or utter negligence on the part of the officers of the State and / or its agencies / instrumentalities and the applications filed by them for c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
