9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (9) TMI 888 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRevision petition - Condonation of delay - Burden of proof - Whether the application under clause 5A of the 1989 Scheme for review of order dated October 21, 2000 passed by the SLSC was indeed filed by the petitioner-company on December 13, 2000 - Held that - There is no material before this court to come to the conclusion that the order dated October 24, 2011, is a perverse order or vitiated by a misdirection in law entailing a question of law to be determined in the present revision petition. The issue of condonation of delay in filing appeal beyond limitation and finding of sufficient cause is a question of fact, which needed to be established from the evidence led by the petitioner-company as the appellant before the Tax Board to draw on its discretion for condoning delay of about 11 years in filing an appeal against SLSC s order dated October 21, 2000. This was the burden of the petitioner-company, Binani Cement Petitioner-company did not produce any proof of filing of the application dated December 13, 2000, before the SLSC at any time or even on March 17, 2011 when the matter was considered. The reliance of the petitioner-company on reply filed by the State Reported as Binani Cement Limited. v. State of Rajasthan 2001 (7) TMI 1260 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT . is also of no avail. It is trite that an admission has to be unequivocal to be relied upon. A perusal of the reply filed by the State shows that the State had completely and unambiguously denied the receipt of the application for review dated December 13, 2000 by the SLSC or the Industries Department. The order of this court Reported as Binani Cement Limited. v. State of Rajasthan 2001 (7) TMI 1260 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT contained no direction to the Tax Board to condone the delay for the whole period of 11 years, but was confined to the petitioner-company s entitlement for condonation of delay from May 21, 2008 to September 5, 2011. For the remainder period from October 21, 2000 to May 21, 2008, the burden was on the petitioner-company to satisfy the Tax Board that it had sufficient cause for filing an inordinately delayed appeal against the SLSC s order dated October 21, 2000 on September 16, 2011, and for hearing the appeal on the merits. The findings of the Tax Board are findings of fact. The scope of revisional jurisdiction in interfering with findings of fact entailing a decision by the concerned court on an application for condonation of delay is extremely narrow as would be evident from the judgment of the honourable apex court in the case of Manindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. 1963 (5) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT - Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of Delay 2. Filing and Proof of Review Application 3. Admission of Filing by Respondent-State 4. Sufficient Cause for Delay 5. Jurisdiction and Scope of Revisional Court 6. Liberal Approach in Condonation of Delay Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Condonation of Delay: The petitioner-company challenged the order dated October 24, 2011, by the Rajasthan Tax Board, which dismissed their application for condonation of delay filed with an appeal against the SLSC's order dated October 21, 2000. The Board found no credible explanation for the delay from November 20, 2000, to May 21, 2008, and dismissed the appeal as time-barred. Filing and Proof of Review Application: The petitioner claimed to have filed a review petition on December 13, 2000, under clause 5A of the 1989 Scheme, but admitted they had no proof of filing. The Tax Board and SLSC found no record of such an application. The petitioner argued that the State's reply to Writ Petition No. 5167 of 2008 admitted the filing, but the State denied this in subsequent paragraphs. Admission of Filing by Respondent-State: The petitioner relied on the State's reply to the writ petition, which initially seemed to admit the filing of the review application. However, a holistic reading of the reply indicated a denial of receipt of such an application. The court found no unequivocal admission by the State regarding the filing of the review application on December 13, 2000. Sufficient Cause for Delay: The petitioner argued that the delay was due to the pendency of proceedings before the SLSC and the High Court. The Tax Board found no sufficient cause for the delay, noting the petitioner's inaction for six years until December 1, 2006, and failure to pursue the matter promptly. The court emphasized that "sufficient cause" must be established with credible evidence, which the petitioner failed to provide. Jurisdiction and Scope of Revisional Court: The court's revisional jurisdiction under section 84 of the VAT Act is limited to questions of law. The Tax Board's findings on the absence of sufficient cause for delay and non-filing of the review application were factual determinations. The court found no legal grounds to interfere with these findings, as they were based on the evidence and record. Liberal Approach in Condonation of Delay: While the Supreme Court has advocated a liberal approach in condoning delays, it has also emphasized that this should not override the substantial law of limitation. The court found that the petitioner's case involved inordinate delay and lacked credible evidence of filing the review application, making it unsuitable for a liberal approach. Conclusion: The court dismissed the revision petition, finding no force in the arguments presented by the petitioner. The stay application was also dismissed. The court upheld the Tax Board's decision, emphasizing the need for credible evidence and timely action in seeking condonation of delay.
|
