2011 (1) TMI 1276 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Condonation of delay of 110 days caused in filing Tax Appeal (Stamp) seeked Held that - The applicant has sufficiently explained the delay that has been caused in preferring the tax appeal and that there is no wilful negligence on the part of the applicant, nor has the applicant ever given up the cause. In the circumstances, the delay caused in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned. Application allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing a tax appeal under Section 78 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003.
2. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to tax appeals under Section 78 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003.
3. Interpretation of statutory provisions related to the extension of the period of limitation.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing a Tax Appeal:
The applicant, the State of Gujarat, sought condonation of a 110-day delay in filing a tax appeal. The delay was attributed to procedural requirements within the administrative hierarchy, which necessitated scrutiny at various levels before filing the appeal. The applicant argued that there was no negligence and that the delay was bona fide.

2. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963:
The respondent contended that Section 78 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 does not provide for condonation of delay, thus the High Court lacks the power to condone such delays. The respondent relied on precedents from the Supreme Court and various High Courts, which held that the limitation for preferring an appeal cannot be extended by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

3. Interpretation of Statutory Provisions:
The court analyzed Section 78 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003, which states that an appeal may be filed within ninety days and that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, applicable to second appeals under Section 100, shall apply. The court noted that Rule 3A of Order XLI of the Code provides for condonation of delay when sufficient cause is shown. Therefore, the court concluded that the High Court has the power to condone delays in tax appeals under Section 78.

Detailed Analysis:

Condonation of Delay:
The court noted that the delay was due to procedural requirements inherent in government processes, such as multiple levels of approval. The Supreme Court has previously held that procedural delays in government matters are common and should be viewed with pragmatism. The court found that the applicant had sufficiently explained the delay and that there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction.

Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act:
The court referred to Section 78 of the Act, which allows for the application of the Code of Civil Procedure to tax appeals. Since Section 78 does not explicitly provide for condonation of delay, the provisions of Section 100 and Order XLII of the Code, which include Rule 3A for condonation of delay, are applicable. The court rejected the respondent's contention that the High Court lacks the power to condone delays.

Interpretation of Statutory Provisions:
The court examined Section 84 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, which provides for the extension of the period of limitation in certain cases. Although Section 84 seemed to have drafting errors, the court interpreted it to mean that the High Court has the power to admit appeals under Section 78 after the period of limitation if sufficient cause is shown. The court adopted a purposive interpretation to reconcile the provisions and ensure they are meaningful.

Conclusion:
The court held that the High Court has the power to condone delays in filing tax appeals under Section 78 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The 110-day delay in the present case was sufficiently explained and not due to negligence. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay was allowed, and the delay was condoned.

← Previous Next →