1991 (3) TMI 384 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing second appeals based on reliance on earlier Tribunal decision.
2. Condonation of delay in filing second appeals after reversal of earlier Tribunal decision.

Analysis:

The judgment of the Gujarat High Court, delivered by Justices G.T. Nanavati and S.D. Shah, addressed two questions referred by the Tribunal at the instance of the assessee. The first issue pertained to the condonation of delay in filing second appeals based on the assessee's reliance on a previous Tribunal decision. The Tribunal had held that such reliance did not constitute "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay under section 71 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969. The second question involved the condonation of delay in filing second appeals after the Gujarat High Court had overturned the earlier Tribunal decision. The assessee had delayed filing the appeals until after the High Court's reversal. The Tribunal rejected the condonation of delay and dismissed the appeals as time-barred, leading the assessee to seek a reference to the High Court.

Regarding the first issue, the Court considered the assessee's argument that reliance on the earlier Tribunal decision justified the delay in filing the second appeals. However, the Court referred to a previous judgment in the case of Baroda Rayon Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, where it was held that such reliance could not be deemed as sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Therefore, the Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision in this regard, ruling against the assessee and in favor of the Revenue.

Moving on to the second issue, the Court noted that the assessee had belatedly filed the second appeals after the High Court had reversed the earlier Tribunal decision. Despite the change in circumstances, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to not condone the delay in filing the appeals. Citing the precedent set in the Baroda Rayon Corporation Ltd. case, the Court concluded that the delay could not be excused based on the High Court's reversal of the earlier decision. Consequently, both questions were answered in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favor of the Revenue. The Court also specified that there would be no order as to costs in this reference, thereby concluding the judgment.