2014 (3) TMI 568 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Claim of refund - Condonation of delay - Rejection of appeal by VAT Tribunal whether ground of similar issue being decided in favour of the assessee gives reason to prefer appeal condonation of delay of 836 days sufficiency of reason - Held that - Constitution Bench judgment in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India 1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA followed - it is not open to any person to make a refund claim on the basis of a decision of a Court or Tribunal rendered in the case of another person - He claim that the decision of the Court/Tribunal in another person s case has led him to discover the mistake of law under which he has paid the tax nor can he claim that he is entitled to prefer a writ petition or to institute a suit within three years of such alleged discovery of mistake of law - Any proposition to the contrary not only results in substantial prejudice to public interest but is offensive to several well established principles of law and leads to grave public mischief. Explanation rendered for condonation of delay is not sufficient - At the relevant time, against the order passed by the AO, appellant carried no further challenge - Merely because much later it was decided in a particular manner by a Court or tribunal would not give reason to the appellant to prefer the appeal - It is true that the Appellate Commissioner had power to condone the delay - It is equally true that the Courts normally adopt a liberal approach in considering the explanation for delay caused in filing the appeals since substantial justice is the primary concern - that does not mean howsoever long, delay should be condoned whether there is sufficient explanation or not - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to VAT tribunal's judgment on delay condonation application for appeal filing.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged the VAT tribunal's judgment rejecting the second appeal due to a delay of 836 days in filing the appeal against the order of assessment. The appellant sought to condone the delay based on a previous judgment in favor of another party. The Commissioner of Commercial Tax dismissed the delay condonation application and the appeal. The tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision. The appellant argued that the delay should be condoned due to the interpretation of statutory provisions becoming clearer only after a specific judgment. However, the court held that the explanation for the delay was insufficient. The court emphasized that a delay cannot be condoned solely based on a subsequent judgment clarifying the law. The court referred to the Mafatlal Industries Ltd. case, stating that a person must fight their own legal battles and cannot claim a refund or reopen assessments based on judgments in other cases. The court concluded that the tribunal did not commit any error, and the tax appeal was dismissed.