2012 (8) TMI 875 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in not condoning the delay? Held that - Adverting to the facts of the present case and keeping in view the fact that the order of the JETC(A) was passed on August 9, 2010 and that the counsel for the appellant got its certified copy on August 20, 2010 but the appellant could only obtain it on December 30, 2010 and filed the appeal on January 13, 2011 which was late by 85 days, sufficient cause existed in condoning the delay. Accordingly, the Tribunal was not right in declining the application for condonation of delay and the order is legally unsustainable. Consequently, the questions of law as claimed are answered in favour of the appellant and against the State.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order dismissing second appeal as time-barred
- Legality of refusing to condone delay by the Tribunal

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an appeal against the order of the assessing authority determining additional tax liability. The appeal was dismissed by the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), following which a second appeal was filed before the Haryana Tax Tribunal along with an application for condonation of delay. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as time-barred by about three months, citing the appellant's negligence in procuring the order copy on time.

2. The main issue in the appeal was whether the Tribunal was legally justified in not condoning the delay. The High Court found that the Tribunal's decision was technically flawed as it did not consider the appellant's plea and circumstances adequately. The High Court emphasized that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 allows for condonation of delay if sufficient cause is shown, especially in cases of short duration delays.

3. The High Court referred to various judgments, including Collector, Land Acquisition, Anant Nag v. Mst Katiji and Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Limited v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation, which emphasized a liberal approach in condoning delays of short duration. The court highlighted that technical considerations should not override substantial justice and that culpable negligence or mala fides must be present to deny condonation.

4. Considering the facts of the case, where the appellant received the certified copy of the order with a delay and filed the appeal late by 85 days, the High Court found that sufficient cause existed to condone the delay. The Court concluded that the Tribunal erred in declining the application for condonation of delay, rendering its order legally unsustainable.

5. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order and remanding the case for a decision on merits in accordance with the law. The judgment favored the appellant, highlighting the importance of considering the circumstances and showing a liberal approach in matters of delay condonation.