2001 (8) TMI 1356 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing tax revision cases.
2. Whether a subsequent change in law constitutes "sufficient cause" for condoning delay.
3. Evaluation of explanations provided for the delay.
4. Applicability of previous judgments and their relevance to the current cases.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing Tax Revision Cases:
The petitioner filed three tax revision cases with delays of 463, 521, and 186 days, respectively. The petitioner sought condonation of these delays under section 22(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. The common question was whether a mere change in law subsequent to the impugned order constitutes "sufficient cause" for condoning the delay.

2. Whether a Subsequent Change in Law Constitutes "Sufficient Cause" for Condoning Delay:
The petitioner argued that the subsequent judgments, which altered the position of law, should be considered "sufficient cause" for condoning the delay. The petitioner relied on the judgment in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Venkataramana Chuduva & Muramura Merchant [1984] 57 STC 179, which held that a subsequent decision changing the law could constitute "sufficient cause" for condoning delay.

3. Evaluation of Explanations Provided for the Delay:
- C.M.P. No. 11808 of 2001 (463 days delay): The petitioner claimed the delay was due to the belief that filing a tax revision case would be futile based on the existing law at that time. The petitioner acted after a favorable judgment in Anandi Roller Flour Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [2001] 122 STC 597.
- C.M.P. No. 11955 of 2001 (521 days delay): The petitioner cited the Supreme Court's judgment in BPL Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2001] 121 STC 450, which altered the legal position regarding electronic goods. The petitioner acted upon learning about this judgment.
- C.M.P. No. 13512 of 2001 (186 days delay): Similar to the previous case, the petitioner acted based on the Supreme Court's judgment in BPL Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh.

4. Applicability of Previous Judgments and Their Relevance:
- Venkataramana Chuduva's Case [1984] 57 STC 179: The court held that a subsequent change in law could constitute "sufficient cause" for condoning the delay. However, the court noted that this judgment might not hold in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [1998] 111 STC 467, which emphasized that a litigant who acquiesced to a decision cannot reopen it based on a subsequent favorable decision obtained by another person.
- Hyderabad Wire & Allied Products v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [1999] 115 STC 286: The court dismissed the appeals filed with significant delays, emphasizing that mere change in law is not sufficient to condone delays.
- Golden Wine Agencies, Hyderabad v. Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad: The court condoned the delay on the grounds of prosecuting remedies before the Supreme Court and health issues, distinguishing it from the current cases where the only cause shown was the change in law.
- Surya General Traders v. Commercial Tax Officer (1997) 25 APSTJ 85: The court emphasized that the State should not stand by technical pleas of limitation if a citizen's case is otherwise meritorious, but the current cases did not involve similar mitigating circumstances.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the mere ground of change of law without any other mitigating circumstances or satisfactory explanation does not constitute "sufficient cause" to condone the delay. The petitions for condonation of delay were dismissed, and consequently, the tax revision cases were also dismissed.