1971 (6) TMI 50 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Extension of time for filing an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax; Justification for condoning the delay in filing the appeal; Interpretation of sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period; Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the respondent was justified in not filing the appeal before knowing a specific Supreme Court decision.

Analysis:
The High Court was asked to determine whether the Sales Tax Tribunal was justified in extending the time for filing an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner beyond the prescribed period. The Sales Tax Officer assessed the respondents on 6th October 1965, and the period for filing an appeal expired on 5th December 1965. The respondents filed the appeal on 29th April 1966, more than four months late. The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal as time-barred, leading the respondents to appeal to the Sales Tax Tribunal, which found sufficient cause for the delay and remanded the appeal for consideration on merits. The Commissioner filed a petition questioning the Tribunal's decision, arguing that the delay condonation was unjustified and challenging the legal basis for delaying the appeal until a specific Supreme Court decision was known.

The main issue raised in the petition was whether the Tribunal's decision to condone the delay in filing the appeal was justified. The High Court opined that this did not involve a question of law and thus rejected the petition. However, the Court found the Tribunal's decision reasonable. The respondents claimed they waited for a specific Supreme Court judgment before filing the appeal, acting promptly after the judgment was published. Referring to a previous Supreme Court case, the Court noted that the proper remedy for such situations was to file an appeal or seek revision with a plea for delay condonation based on the discovery of a mistake following a relevant Supreme Court judgment. The Court found the respondents' actions aligned with this legal principle, making the petition futile.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Tribunal's decision to extend the time for filing the appeal. The Court found the respondents' actions in line with legal precedents and rejected the Commissioner's challenge to the delay condonation. The petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged with costs.