2013 (3) TMI 445 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Revision application dismissed - delay of 1 year, 8 months and 26 days - Held that - It is not in dispute that the assessment order was served on the counsel of the petitioner and not to the petitioner. As per the affidavit of the counsel, copy of the order was tagged by his clerk in a disposed of file and could not be traced out within the time period of limitation within which the revision could have been filed. See Rafiq and another Vs. Munshill and another (1981 (4) TMI 255 - SUPREME COURT) wherein held that an innocent party should not suffer for the inaction, deliberate omission, or mis-demeanour of his counsel. Thus there is no an iota of doubt that because of the mistake of the counsel, the party should not be suffered - delay ought to have been condoned.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing a revision petition.
2. Condonation of delay in filing the revision petition.
3. Service of order on counsel instead of the assessee.
4. Application of Rule 76 of Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Rules, 1995.
5. Grounds for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition.
6. Precedent set by the Apex Court in Rafiq and another Vs. Munshill and another (AIR 1981 SC 1400).

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh heard a case concerning the delay in filing a revision petition against an order dated 4/3/2009 by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Chhindwara. The Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Jabalpur dismissed the revision petition due to a delay of 1 year, 8 months, and 26 days. The petitioner's counsel argued that the order was served on the counsel and not the assessee, leading to a delay in filing the revision. The State's counsel opposed the condonation of delay, stating that the revision was filed beyond the limitation period. The court examined Rule 76 of Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Rules, 1995, which mandates a one-year limitation for filing a revision from the date of the order.

The court considered whether the grounds presented by the petitioner were sufficient to condone the delay. Referring to the case of Rafiq and another Vs. Munshill and another (AIR 1981 SC 1400), the court emphasized that an innocent party should not suffer due to the mistakes of their counsel. It was noted that the assessment order was served on the counsel, not the petitioner, and the delay was attributed to the clerk's error in misplacing the order in a disposed of file. The court held that based on the precedent set by the Apex Court, the delay should be condoned, as the petitioner should not be penalized for the counsel's mistake.

Consequently, the court allowed the petition, condoned the delay in filing the revision, and directed the revisional authority to restore the revision to its original number for a decision on merits after providing an opportunity for both parties to be heard. The court emphasized that the petitioner had established a valid case for condonation of delay, in line with the principles laid down by the Apex Court in similar cases. The judgment concluded with no order as to costs.