2013 (1) TMI 436 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Condonation of delay - Filing the restoration petition - Held that - The petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the relief. It is noted from the available records, that the petitioner has been filing several petitions, one after the other, for the condonation of the delay and for the restoration of the petitions. No proper reasons have been shown by the petitioner for non-appearance of the petitioner and its authorized representative, during the hearing of the matter. No party can sleep over its rights and thereafter, make an attempt to establish its rights, without having proper reasons to do so. It is clear that the petitioner had not shown acceptable reasons for granting the relief, as prayed for by the petitioner. In favour of revenue

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing restoration petition.
2. Proper application of mind by the Tribunal.
3. Abuse of process of the Court by the petitioner.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case revolves around the condonation of a significant delay in filing a restoration petition. The petitioner sought to restore an appeal that was dismissed for default due to non-appearance. The petitioner's counsel argued that despite showing sufficient cause for the delay of 429 days, the Tribunal dismissed the restoration petition without proper consideration. The petitioner relied on legal precedents to support their contention, emphasizing the reasonable chance of success in the appeal.

2. The Tribunal, on the other hand, contended that the petitioner had a history of filing frivolous petitions with the intention of delaying the implementation of an assessment order. The Tribunal highlighted multiple instances where the petitioner failed to appear for hearings or provide acceptable reasons for delays. The Tribunal dismissed subsequent restoration petitions due to non-prosecution and lack of convincing reasons. The petitioner's repeated failure to actively pursue the case was a significant factor in the Tribunal's decision.

3. The Court considered the arguments presented by both parties and reviewed the history of the case. It noted that the petitioner had filed numerous petitions for condonation of delay and restoration without valid reasons for non-appearance. The Court emphasized that parties cannot neglect their rights and then seek to establish them without proper justification. Ultimately, the Court found that the petitioner had not demonstrated sufficient cause for the relief sought in the writ petition. The Court concluded that the petitioner's actions amounted to an abuse of the court process and dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the importance of parties taking proactive steps to pursue their legal remedies.