2000 (8) TMI 1069 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal under section 39(1) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 and the condonation of the same under the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis:
The judgment of the Court focused on determining whether the delay in filing an appeal under section 39(1) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 could be condoned by applying the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963. The petitioner had filed an appeal against an order of assessment, which was dismissed as time-barred by the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequent review petitions were also dismissed. Arguments were presented citing previous decisions such as Bharat Rubber and Allied Industries v. State of Punjab and Shivam Riceland v. State of Haryana to support opposing views on the condonation of delay in filing appeals under the Act.

The Court considered the arguments presented and referred to previous judgments to analyze the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 in such cases. It was noted that the Full Bench in Bharat Rubber and Allied Industries case had held that the provisions of the Limitation Act would apply to proceedings under special laws unless there was an express provision to the contrary. The Division Bench in Shivam Riceland case also held that section 5 of the Limitation Act would apply to proceedings under the 1973 Act, allowing for the condonation of delay in filing appeals.

The Court further examined a decision in Ballarpur Industries Ltd. v. State of Haryana, where it was argued that the rule prescribing the period of limitation was mandatory and could not be condoned. However, the Court rejected this argument, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the prescribed timelines. The Court clarified that the limitation of 90 days, in that case, was mandatory without provision for condonation of delay.

Ultimately, the Court held that the appellate authority and the Tribunal under the 1973 Act had the power to condone delay by invoking the relevant provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963. The order dismissing the petitioner's appeal as time-barred was deemed legally incorrect and unjustified, and thus quashed. The Court directed that the appeal be heard and decided on its merits, allowing the writ petition in favor of the petitioner.