2013 (2) TMI 661 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Condonation of delay of 1,226 days of filing appeal - Held that - What is stated for explaining such delay is that due to Government administrative mechanism, within the statutory time period, tax appeal could not be filed. In absence of any specific details and explanation, this explanation in general terms does not satisfy. There can be no straight-jacket formula adopted which can be applied uniformly in all matters, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. In absence of any satisfactory explanation coming forth for condonation of delay, no liberal attitude requires to be adopted; particularly considering the inordinate delay in preferring this application. Only because the applicant is the State, it cannot be absolved of its responsibility to fulfil the mandate of law. Even if day-to-day explanation is not desired, for a long period after the sanction of Finance Department also, nothing emerges on record to indicate due care or diligence to satisfy the requirement of explaining sufficiency of cause. Condonation rejected.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing a tax appeal.
2. Explanation for the delay provided by the applicant-State.
3. Legal principles and precedents regarding the condonation of delay.

Detailed Analysis:

Condonation of Delay in Filing a Tax Appeal:
The primary issue revolves around the application for condonation of a 1,226-day delay in filing a tax appeal against the order dated April 21, 2009, by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal. The applicant-State contended that the delay was due to procedural and administrative hurdles, including the loss of documents and a shortage of stenographers.

Explanation for the Delay Provided by the Applicant-State:
The applicant-State detailed the timeline of events leading to the delay, starting from receiving the certified copy of the impugned judgment on May 7, 2009, to the eventual filing of the tax appeal. The explanation included:
- The file being put up by the Commercial Tax Inspector on June 6, 2009.
- The Government Agent-1's opinion for challenging the judgment received on March 11, 2010.
- The proposal sent to the Finance Department on April 5, 2010, and sanction received on April 28, 2010.
- The papers sent to the Government Pleader on May 19, 2010, were lost, and a new set was sent later.
- Heavy workload and shortage of stenographers in the Government Pleader's office.

The applicant argued that the delay was unintentional and due to unavoidable administrative circumstances. They emphasized that the delay should be condoned to avoid prejudice to a meritorious case and protect public interest.

Legal Principles and Precedents Regarding the Condonation of Delay:
The court examined several precedents to determine the sufficiency of the explanation for the delay:
- G. Ramegowda, Major v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (AIR 1988 SC 897): The Supreme Court recognized the procedural delays inherent in governmental functioning and allowed some latitude.
- N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (AIR 1998 SC 3222): The Supreme Court held that limitation rules should not jeopardize parties' rights and interests, advocating a liberal approach where large tax revenues are at stake.
- State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani ([1996] 3 SCC 132): Reiterated a liberal approach in condoning delays.
- Lanka Venkateshwarlu (D) by L.Rs. v. State of A.P. (AIR 2011 SC 1199): Emphasized that a liberal approach should not override the substantial law of limitation.
- Balwant Singh (Dead) v. Jagdish Singh (2010 AIR SCW 4848): Defined "sufficient cause" and stressed the need for legal and adequate reasons for delays.
- Postmaster General v. Living Media India Limited ([2012] 54 VST 188 (SC)): Refused to condone delays without plausible and acceptable explanations, even for government bodies.

The court noted that while a liberal approach is often adopted, it must not undermine the substantial law of limitation. The explanation provided by the applicant-State was deemed general and lacking specific details. The court found no sufficient cause for the delay, emphasizing that even the State must fulfill the mandate of the law.

Conclusion:
The application for condonation of delay was rejected due to the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the significant delay. Consequently, the Tax Appeal (Stamp) No. 2386 of 2012 was also dismissed. The court underscored the necessity for governmental bodies to adhere to legal timelines and provide detailed, specific reasons for any delays.