9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1631X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 33(6) of the HVAT Act are identical. For brevity, facts are being taken from VATAP No. 16/2019. 2. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue under section 36(1) of the Haryana VAT Act, 2003 against the order dated July 19, 2017 (A-4) passed by the Haryana Tax Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) claiming the following substantial questions of law : (a) Whether the order dated July 19, 2017 (A-4) passed by the Haryana Tax Tribunal is legally sustainable which was passed merely on the ground of delay and without going into the merits of the case ? (b) Whether the Haryana Tax Tribunal was justified in ignoring the law settled by various Courts including the honourable apex court in number of judicial decisions rendered i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity. The appeal was filed after a delay of 560 days and it was barred by limitation of time of 180 days (for the State) to file appeal as prescribed under sub-section (6) of section 33 of the HVAT Act, 2003. An application was filed before the Tribunal seeking condonation of said delay. However, the Tribunal vide the impugned order dated July 19, 2017 (A-4) dismissed the appeal being hit by limitation. Hence the present appeal. 5. The solitary question that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeals which was belated. 6. After having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any merit in the appeal. 7. Examining the facts in the present cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was explained by the general plea of discussion and shuttling of file between the two offices. While doing so the Tribunal had also referred to section 33(6) of the HVAT Act which provide long limitation period of 180 days for the State to file an appeal. The Tribunal has also rightly observed that if the matter was of such a serious nature having huge financial implications for the State as alleged by it then the case should have been given the urgency and importance it deserved and the decision to file appeal should have been taken expeditiously even prior to the expiry of limitation period of 180 days which is otherwise also sufficiently a long period. 8. This court in VAT Appeal No. 47 of 2012 (Hansaflon Plasto Chem. Ltd. v. State of H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urts should adopt liberal approach where delay is of short period whereas the proof required should be strict where the delay is inordinate. Further, it was also observed that judgments dealing with the condonation of delay may not lay down any standard or objective test but is purely an individualistic test. The court is required to examine while adjudicating the matter relating to condonation of delay on exercising judicial discretion on individual facts involved therein. There does not exist any exhaustive list constituting sufficient cause. The applicant/petitioner is required to establish that in spite of acting with due care and caution, the delay had occurred due to circumstances beyond his control and was inevitable." 9. As if dism ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
