2014 (9) TMI 970 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Condonation of delay of 155 days - sufficient cause - delay in filing of an appeal before VAT tribunal - appellant submitted that due to different levels of decision making authorities, there was delay in taking the final decision of filing the appeal before the Tribunal. - Held that - The explanation furnished by the appellant appears to be plausible and, therefore, leads to the conclusion that there was sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal. Once that was so, the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal deserves to be condoned and appeal heard on merits by the Tribunal. - Delay condoned - matter restored before tribunal. - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal and whether the delay should be condoned.

Analysis:
The appellant, a Government of India undertaking engaged in the sale and purchase of petroleum products, filed an appeal under Section 36 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 against the order passed by the Haryana Tax Tribunal. The primary issue was whether the delay of 155 days in filing the appeal was justifiable. The Tribunal had dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation, leading to the present appeal before the High Court.

The legal position regarding condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was examined. Referring to the Supreme Court's judgments in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, the Court emphasized that the law of limitation is based on public policy to ensure timely redressal of legal injuries. The concept of "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay is flexible, requiring a case-by-case analysis. The Court must determine whether the delay was due to circumstances beyond the party's control and whether the party acted with reasonable diligence.

In this case, the appellant argued that the delay in filing the appeal was unintentional and resulted from the decision-making process involving different authorities. The Court found the explanation provided by the appellant plausible and concluded that there was sufficient cause for the delay. Citing a previous judgment where a similar delay was condoned, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for adjudication on merits in accordance with the law. Consequently, the delay of 155 days was condoned, and the substantial question of law was answered accordingly.