2013 (7) TMI 913 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

condone the delay in preferring the tax appeal for genuine efforts were made by the office of Commercial Tax Department - delay due to heavy workload permission from the Finance Department.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing tax appeal challenging the judgment and order passed by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal.

Analysis:
The State of Gujarat filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone a delay of 1222 days in filing a tax appeal against a judgment dated 31.08.2009 by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal. The Assistant Government Pleader explained the delay, stating that after receiving the judgment, the proposal to file the appeal was sent to the Finance Department, which granted permission on 17.06.2010. The relevant papers were then sent to the Government Pleader's office, where heavy workload caused a delay in drafting and filing the appeal. The State argued that the case involved a substantial amount of Rs. 2,48,40,578 and could impact other similar cases. Citing previous court decisions, the State requested the delay be condoned.

The respondent, represented by an advocate, opposed the application, claiming that the delay was inadequately explained. Relying on a Supreme Court decision, the respondent requested the application be dismissed.

The court, after hearing arguments from both sides, noted the significant amount involved in the case and referenced a previous decision where a similar delay was condoned. The court emphasized the importance of considering cases on their merits, especially when substantial amounts of revenue are at stake. Quoting various legal precedents, the court highlighted the need to balance public interest and the slow bureaucratic process of the government in matters of delay condonation. Ultimately, the court decided to allow the application, condoning the delay and imposing a cost of Rs. 20,000 to be paid to the respondent within four weeks.

In conclusion, the court granted the application, condoning the delay in filing the tax appeal and ordering the payment of costs to the respondent. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering cases involving substantial revenue on their merits and balancing public interest with the limitations of government procedures.