2003 (8) TMI 495 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of appeals on grounds of limitation.
2. Failure to supply certified copies of orders imposing penalty.

Issue 1: Dismissal of appeals on grounds of limitation:
The petitioner filed a writ petition under articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash orders dismissing their appeals. The petitioner, a registered company engaged in manufacturing steel ingots, had sent consignments to another state, intercepted by authorities, and penalized. The appeals were dismissed by the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner and the Sales Tax Tribunal on grounds of being time-barred. The petitioner contended that they disputed the penalty imposition, had valid documents, and moved applications for certified copies within the limitation period. The respondents argued that the petitioner failed to file appeals within the stipulated period. The court analyzed the provisions of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, which allowed for the exclusion of time spent in obtaining certified copies while computing the limitation period. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, the court concluded that the dismissal of appeals based on limitation was unjustified. The court emphasized that the acceptance of the explanation for delay is crucial in condoning delays, and the petitioner had shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals.

Issue 2: Failure to supply certified copies of orders imposing penalty:
The petitioner contended that no certified copy of the orders imposing penalties was supplied to their representative on the day of imposition. The petitioner moved applications for certified copies within the limitation period, which remained pending. The respondents argued that the copies were supplied on the same day, hence no further action was necessary on the applications. The court noted that the petitioner had moved applications for certified copies within the limitation period, as required by law. The court emphasized the importance of providing a liberal construction to the term 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay. Referring to Supreme Court judgments, the court highlighted that the primary function of a court is to adjudicate disputes and advance substantial justice. As there was no mala fide intent on the part of the petitioner, and the applications for certified copies were still pending when the appeals were dismissed, the court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned orders, and remitted the matter for fresh decision on merits to the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner.

In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing the importance of considering sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals and the need for a liberal construction of the term 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay.