2009 (3) TMI 928 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Period of limitation - appeal dismissed as one barred by limitation - Held that - In view of the undisputed position the impugned order at annexure C is quashed by issue of a writ of certiorari and the matter is remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal as one presented within the period of limitation with directions to dispose of the appeal on merits and as per law.Writ petitions are allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal dismissed as barred by limitation under Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003.
2. Appellate authority's failure to notify appellant of delay in appeal presentation.
3. Interpretation of time limitation for appeal under Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.
4. Requirement of application for condonation of delay under relevant statutory provisions.
5. Quashing of impugned order and remand for examination on merits.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to writ petitions filed by an assessee under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, challenging the dismissal of their appeal as barred by limitation. The appeal was presented a day after the expiry of the prescribed period, leading to the legality of this order being questioned in the writ petition.

2. The petitioner argued that the appellate authority did not provide any indication of the delay in appeal presentation, which could have been explained if notified. This lack of opportunity to rectify the delay was highlighted as an infirmity in the order.

3. The petitioner contended that since the last date for appeal presentation fell on a Sunday, the appeal filed on the next working day should be considered within the period of limitation as per section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899. This argument aimed to address the issue of the appeal being filed a day late.

4. The requirement of filing an application for condonation of delay under the relevant statutory provisions was emphasized by the petitioner. It was pointed out that even if there was a delay in appeal presentation, the appellate authority should have issued a notice for rectification of defects, including filing an application for condonation of delay, as per the rules.

5. The judgment ultimately quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter to the appellate authority for a reexamination of the appeal on merits. The court directed the disposal of the appeal in accordance with the law, treating it as presented within the period of limitation. The writ petitions were allowed, and the impugned order was set aside for further review.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved and the court's decision regarding each aspect of the case.