1986 (2) TMI 316 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Penalty imposed under section 15-A(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act for transporting goods without proper documentation.
2. Dismissal of appeal by Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) as time-barred.
3. Dismissal of second appeal by the Tribunal as time-barred without considering the merits.
4. Application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act.
5. Exercise of discretion by authorities in condoning delay.
6. Lack of cogent reasons provided by the Tribunal for not accepting the explanation for delay.
7. Applicant's status as a mere transporter and the release of goods to the consignee without security.
8. Setting aside the Tribunal's order and remanding the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration.

Analysis:
1. The revision pertains to penalty proceedings under section 15-A(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act imposed on the applicant for transporting goods worth Rs. 30,814 without the required form XXXI. The goods were seized but later unconditionally released to the consignee without any security deposit.

2. The appeal filed by the applicant before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) was dismissed as time-barred, leading to further dissatisfaction and subsequent appeal before the Tribunal.

3. The Tribunal also dismissed the second appeal as time-barred without delving into the merits of the case, prompting the applicant to challenge the decision based on procedural grounds.

4. The applicant sought condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, explaining the circumstances leading to the delay in filing the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner.

5. The discretionary power of the authorities to condone delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act was highlighted, emphasizing the need for a judicial exercise of such discretion rather than arbitrary decisions.

6. The Tribunal's failure to provide adequate reasons for rejecting the explanation offered by the applicant for the delay in filing the appeal was noted, indicating a procedural flaw in the decision-making process.

7. Considering the applicant's role as a mere transporter and the release of goods to the consignee without requiring any security, the court opined on the lack of necessity for imposing a penalty in the given circumstances.

8. Ultimately, the revision was allowed, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) for a fresh consideration of the appeal on its merits, with no costs imposed on either party.