2015 (4) TMI 392 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Condonation of delay - Inordinate delay of 8 years in filing appeals - Held that - Admittedly there was a delay of more than 8 years in filing the appeals before the Deputy Commissioner against the orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The petitioner thus had the onus of rendering reasonable and satisfactory explanation for such delay. The petitioner's main explanations were that the appeals though prepared by the consultant and duly signed by the petitioner were never presented. - This was not to the knowledge of the petitioner. The petitioner realized that the appeals were not filed only in the year 2013 when the department issued notice for recovery. All these aspects were proved to be wrong on record. The memo of appeals contained the address of the Deputy Commissioner where his office was not situated in the year 2005 but much later. It is also come on record that in the year 2009 also the department had sent notices indicating that the Orders in Original were final and no appeals were pending. At least from that point the petitioner should have taken appropriate steps, which, admittedly, was not done. Additionally, even if the petitioner was under the belief that the appeals were filed in the year 2005, it was their duty to inquire with their legal consultant as to the progress in such appeals. Admittedly, for more than 8 years, the petitioner simply forgot about the proceedings. For all these reasons, the Tribunal, in our opinion, committed no jurisdictional error in dismissing the appeals. - Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging order of Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal dismissing appeals due to delay in filing, authenticity of appeal memo, explanation for delay, jurisdictional error by Tribunal.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal dismissing their appeals due to delay in filing. The petitioner claimed their legal advisor assured them the appeals were filed, but they were not presented until 2013 when coercive recovery was initiated. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appeals in 2014 due to gross delay. The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting the appeals were allegedly drafted in 2005 but carried an incorrect address for the Deputy Commissioner's office. The Department argued the petitioner fabricated facts, and the Tribunal agreed. The Tribunal also highlighted that the petitioner was aware of the outstanding liabilities since 2009 but took no steps to inquire about the appeals. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals based on these grounds.

The High Court, after hearing the petitioner's counsel, found no reason to interfere. It noted the significant delay of over 8 years in filing the appeals and emphasized the petitioner's responsibility to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay. The petitioner's main defense was that the appeals were prepared but not presented, which they were unaware of until 2013. However, the Court found this explanation lacking, as the appeal memo contained an incorrect address for the Deputy Commissioner's office in 2005. The Court also highlighted that the Department had sent notices in 2009 indicating the Orders in Original were final, yet the petitioner took no action. The Court concluded that even if the petitioner believed the appeals were filed in 2005, they should have followed up with their legal consultant. The Court determined that the Tribunal did not commit any jurisdictional error in dismissing the appeals, and thus, the petition was dismissed.