1995 (12) TMI 366 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of joint petition for multiple assessment years.
2. Condonation of delay in filing petitions.
3. Application of legal principles in condoning delay.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the question of whether a joint petition for multiple assessment years was maintainable. The petitioner had initially filed a joint petition for three assessment years, which was later deemed to be filed only for one assessment year. The respondent argued that the petitioner should have filed separate petitions for each assessment year. The Court held that the petitioner did not abandon or withdraw the petitions for the subsequent assessment years, and thus, the rule regarding abandoning a cause of action did not apply in this case.

2. The issue of condonation of delay in filing the petitions was also raised. The petitioner sought condonation of delay due to acting upon the advice of the State counsel in filing a joint petition initially. The respondent contended that there was no justifiable cause for condoning the delay, as the petitioner did not disclose the name of the counsel who advised it. The Court considered the circumstances and held that there was no culpable negligence or mala fide on the part of the petitioner in filing the petitions at a belated stage. Refusing to condone the delay would result in a meritorious matter being dismissed, leading to a failure of justice.

3. The Court referred to a Supreme Court judgment regarding condonation of delay, emphasizing the need for a justice-oriented approach and the importance of substantial justice over technical considerations. Applying this principle to the case at hand, the Court found that there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the petitions. In the interest of substantial justice, the Court directed the Tribunal to refer the same question of law which was ordered for the earlier assessment year. The Court highlighted the need for even-handed justice and the importance of considering the collective cause of the community, represented by the State, in legal proceedings.

Overall, the Court allowed the applications, held that the question of law arose from the Tribunal's order, and directed the Tribunal to refer the question of law for the Court's opinion within a specified timeframe.