2013 (4) TMI 297 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Mercy application for restoration - Held that - The petitioner was negligently prosecuting the matter. He submitted the restoration application belatedly without showing sufficient cause and thereafter on dismissal of restoration application, again submitted an application for restoration of appeal, without there being any provision for the same. In these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be shown any indulgence. Thus no case for interference in the matter - jurisdiction dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Petition against assessment order dated 30.03.2009 and 02.12.2011 - Negligent prosecution of appeal by the petitioner - Non-appearance leading to dismissal of appeal - Repeated restoration applications - Mercy application for restoration - Delay and laches in the proceedings.

Analysis:
The petitioner, engaged in trading of pesticides, agro-pumps, seeds, challenged an assessment order for the year 01.04.2000 to 31.03.2001 before the Additional Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Indore, who partly allowed the appeal. Subsequently, the petitioner appealed to the MP Commercial Tax Appellate Board, Bhopal, which dismissed the appeal for non-appearance on 16.04.2007. A restoration application was rejected on 30.03.2009. Instead of challenging this rejection, the petitioner filed another restoration application on 02.12.2011, which was also dismissed. The High Court noted the negligent prosecution of the matter by the petitioner, submitting restoration applications belatedly without sufficient cause and without any provision for repeated restoration applications.

The High Court observed that the petitioner's repeated actions indicated a lack of diligence in pursuing the appeal. The petitioner's failure to provide justified reasons for restoration and the delay in the proceedings were considered significant factors. The Court emphasized that the petitioner cannot expect indulgence in such circumstances, especially when there was no valid ground for interference in the matter under writ jurisdiction. Ultimately, the petition was dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches, highlighting the importance of timely and diligent legal proceedings to seek relief in such matters.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the importance of diligent prosecution of legal matters, especially in matters of appeal and restoration applications. The Court's decision to dismiss the petition due to delay and lack of justified reasons for restoration serves as a reminder of the significance of timely and well-founded legal actions in seeking redressal. The case highlights the consequences of negligence and delay in legal proceedings, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the petition.