2012 (8) TMI 869 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the interpretation of provisions of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003, assessment of tax under the State Act and Central Sales Tax Act, deposit requirements for hearing appeals, delay in depositing the required amount, dismissal of appeals by the appellate authority and Tribunal, and the application of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay in filing appeals.

Interpretation of Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003:
The appellant filed appeals under section 36 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 against assessment orders for the years 2001-02 and 2002-03. The appellant was issued a certificate by the Khadi and Village Industries Board, Haryana, for the manufacture of various products. The assessing authority framed assessment and imposed tax under the State Act and Central Sales Tax Act. The appellant filed appeals without payment of tax and was allowed to deposit the additional demand in instalments subject to a surety bond.

Deposit Requirements for Hearing Appeals:
The appellate authority directed the appellant to deposit the additional demand in instalments for hearing the appeals. However, the appellant failed to deposit the full amount within the specified time frame. The appellant later claimed to have deposited the amount in 2010, which was a delay of more than four years from the original order. The delay in depositing the amount was not considered bona fide, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.

Dismissal of Appeals and Application of Limitation Act, 1963:
The appellate authority dismissed all appeals filed by the appellant for failure to deposit the required amount as directed. The Tribunal upheld this decision. The appellant sought to have the appeals heard on merits after depositing the amount, but the court found no merit in this contention. Additionally, there was a delay of 367 days in filing the appeals, which the appellant attributed to domestic reasons and lack of knowledge of the limitation period. However, the court held that this did not constitute "sufficient cause" under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and dismissed the application for condonation of delay.

Conclusion:
The court found no substantial question of law in the appeals and dismissed them accordingly. The delay in depositing the required amount for hearing the appeals was deemed not bona fide, leading to the rejection of the appellant's request to have the appeals heard on merits. Additionally, the court dismissed the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeals due to lack of sufficient cause under the Limitation Act, 1963.