2013 (9) TMI 982 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Condonation of delay - Inordinate delay of 1205 days - Held that - From the averments made in the application in support of the prayer to condone the delay it appears that no specific particulars are given explaining the huge delay and as such the same can be said to be as vague as it can be. In any case in the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that the huge delay of more than 1205 days has not been properly and sufficiently explained. - Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone huge delay. - Condonation denied.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in preferring a Tax Appeal

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the State of Gujarat to condone a significant delay of 1205 days in preferring a Tax Appeal against a judgment passed by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal. The Additional Government Pleader representing the applicant argued that the case had merit, involving a pure question of law with a substantial financial impact of Rs. 17 lakhs. The counsel relied on Supreme Court decisions such as G. Ramegowda v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, and State of Haryana v. Chandramani to support the plea for condonation of delay.

The court, comprising M.R. Shah and Sonia Gokani, JJ., considered the grounds presented by the Additional Government Pleader but noted that the application failed to provide specific and satisfactory reasons for the prolonged delay. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Lanka Venkateswarlu (D) by L.Rs v. State of A.P., emphasizing that judicial discretion in condoning delays under section 5 of the Limitation Act must be exercised within reasonable bounds and not as a means to bypass the law of limitation. The court highlighted that inefficiency or ineptitude, as seen in the case of Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd., cannot justify condoning delays.

Ultimately, the court found the Department's explanation for the delay inadequate, as it merely listed dates and shifted blame to the Government Pleader's office without providing substantial reasons. Consequently, the court dismissed the application to condone the delay and consequently dismissed the Tax Appeal on the grounds of delay. However, the court kept the question of law open for future consideration despite dismissing the appeal due to the delay.