1976 (9) TMI 145 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Delay in preferring second appeals under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, jurisdiction of Sales Tax Officer, discretionary power under section 23(3)(a) of the Act, condonation of delay, principles of justice, arbitrariness in exercising jurisdiction, diligence in taking appropriate steps, explanation for delay, capacity of State officers, quashing of Tribunal's order.

Analysis:

The judgment by the Orissa High Court involved eleven applications by a Government undertaking, seeking writs of certiorari to quash a common order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal of Orissa regarding the condonation of delay in preferring second appeals under the Orissa Sales Tax Act. The petitioner-company contended that it was not a dealer as the delivery of aero engines to the Government did not constitute a "sale." Despite this, assessments were made treating the petitioner as an unregistered dealer, leading to penalties under the Act.

The Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax upheld the petitioner's contention that the transactions did not amount to a sale, resulting in the vacating of tax demands and penalties. However, there was a delay of 137 days in preferring the second appeals, which were filed beyond the prescribed sixty-day period. The Tribunal, under the proviso to section 23(3)(a) of the Act, condoned the delay, which was challenged in the proceedings.

The Court acknowledged that the power to condone the delay was discretionary, akin to section 5 of the Limitation Act, emphasizing that such discretion should be exercised judiciously. The petitioner argued that the Tribunal's order was arbitrary and based on assumptions not supported by the record. The State's reasons for the delay were scrutinized, with discrepancies in the explanations provided, leading to doubts about the diligence and capacity of the State officers involved.

Citing a decision of the Patna High Court, the Court emphasized the importance of diligence in pursuing remedies within the prescribed time limits. It was noted that the delay in filing the appeals was not adequately justified, especially considering the time available after the records were received. The Court criticized the Tribunal for its imprudent handling of the matter and ultimately quashed the Tribunal's order, allowing the writ applications.

In conclusion, the Court highlighted the significance of adhering to statutory time limits and the need for parties to act diligently in pursuing legal remedies. The judgment underscored the importance of providing justifiable explanations for delays and criticized the lack of diligence on the part of the State officers involved in the case.