2014 (1) TMI 1620 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Condonation of delay - Held that - It emerges that the law of limitation has been enacted which is based on public policy so as to prescribe time-limit for availing of legal remedy for redressal of the injury caused. The purpose behind enacting law of limitation is not to destroy the rights of the parties but to see that the uncertainty should not prevail for unlimited period. Under section 5 of the 1963 Act, the courts are empowered to condone the delay where a party approaching the court belatedly shows sufficient cause for not availing of the remedy within the prescribed period. The meaning to be assigned to the expression sufficient cause occurring in section 5 of the 1963 Act should be such so as to do substantial justice between the parties. The existence of sufficient cause depends upon facts of each case and no hard and fast rule can be applied in deciding such cases. The assessee-appellant against the order of the assessing officer preferred an appeal before the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioners (Appeals), Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as JETC(A) ) after the expiry of more than four years and seven months. It was urged that in view of decision of this court in Gheru Lal Bal Chand's case 2011 (9) TMI 492 - Punjab and Haryana High Court , the order of the assessing officer was sought to be challenged. We do not find any sufficient reason for filing the appeal belatedly before the JETC (A). The subsequent decision of the High Court cannot be a justified reason for filing the appeal belatedly. - Condonation denied.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeal before appellate authority under section 36 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003.
2. Consideration of the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court by the Tribunal regarding additional demand due to input tax disallowance.

Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay:
The appellant filed an appeal under section 36 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003, challenging an order disallowing input-tax benefit for the assessment year 2003-04. The appeal was rejected by the Tribunal due to being filed belatedly. The appellant sought to condone the delay of four years and seven months, citing previous court decisions. The court referred to the principles of condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, emphasizing that the law of limitation aims to prevent dilatory tactics and ensure timely legal remedies. The court highlighted the need for a liberal approach for short delays and a stricter approach for inordinate delays, with each case requiring individual examination to establish 'sufficient cause' for the delay.

2. Legal Principles on Condonation of Delay:
The court cited judgments emphasizing that 'sufficient cause' for delay is subjective and must be evaluated based on individual circumstances. It was noted that no standard or objective test exists for determining 'sufficient cause,' and each case must be considered uniquely. The court highlighted the importance of reasonable diligence in pursuing legal remedies and the need for applicants to demonstrate that the delay was beyond their control and inevitable. The court underscored that the purpose of condonation of delay is to ensure substantial justice between parties.

3. Decision on Condonation of Delay:
After considering the arguments, the court found no justification to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The appellant's appeal to challenge the assessing officer's order was filed significantly late, beyond four years and seven months. The court emphasized that subsequent court decisions could not validate the belated filing of the appeal. The court concluded that the appellant failed to provide sufficient reasons for the delay and dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose. The court highlighted that previous court decisions cited by the appellant were specific to their facts and did not warrant condonation of delay in this case.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of timely legal actions and the need to establish 'sufficient cause' for any delay in pursuing legal remedies under the law of limitation.