2002 (3) TMI 930 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of the petitioner's application for sales tax exemption due to late filing.
2. The petitioner's claim of an error in the date of commencement of commercial production.
3. The absence of an application for condonation of delay.
4. The applicability of the principles of natural justice.
5. The scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales and Purchase Tax Act, 1994.
6. The legal maxim "nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria" (No man can take advantage of his own wrong).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of the petitioner's application for sales tax exemption due to late filing:
The petitioner established a new industry and applied for benefits under the Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, 1989. The application was rejected by the District Level Scrutiny Committee (DLSC) on 6.8.97 for being time-barred, as it was filed beyond the 180-day period from the commencement of commercial production. The appeal against this decision was also rejected by the Rajasthan Tax Board on 31.8.2001.

2. The petitioner's claim of an error in the date of commencement of commercial production:
The petitioner initially stated that commercial production began on 4.8.96 but later claimed it actually started on 2.10.96. This correction was made by the Competent Authority but was not submitted to the DLSC before the application was rejected. Even with the corrected date, the application was still filed late, on 31.5.97, beyond the 180-day limit.

3. The absence of an application for condonation of delay:
No application for condonation of delay was filed by the petitioner, nor were any "sufficient grounds" shown for condoning the delay. The DLSC was under no obligation to consider the time-barred application without such a request. The principles of natural justice were not applicable in this scenario, as there was no requirement for the DLSC to ask the petitioner to file for condonation of delay.

4. The applicability of the principles of natural justice:
The court held that the principles of natural justice do not apply when the facts are undisputed and only one conclusion is possible. In this case, the application was time-barred, and there was no obligation to provide a hearing to the petitioner. The doctrine of natural justice cannot be rigidly applied and must be conditioned by the facts and circumstances of each case.

5. The scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales and Purchase Tax Act, 1994:
The court's power of revision under Section 86 can only be exercised when the case involves a question of law. A finding on a question of fact is final unless it is unsupported by evidence or is perverse. In this case, the finding that the application was time-barred was based on the petitioner's own admission and could not be challenged in revision.

6. The legal maxim "nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria" (No man can take advantage of his own wrong):
The petitioner cannot take advantage of his own failure to file a timely application for condonation of delay. The court emphasized that the law should prevent wrong-doers from benefiting from their own wrongs. The petitioner's delay in filing the application and the absence of a request for condonation cannot be used to blame the opposite party or claim non-compliance with natural justice.

Conclusion:
The revision was dismissed as the application was time-barred, and no legal question was involved. The court found no grounds to interfere with the decisions of the DLSC and the Tax Board. The principles of natural justice and the scope of revisional jurisdiction were correctly applied, and the petitioner could not take advantage of his own delay.