2015 (10) TMI 1847 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Condonation of delay - Delay of 761 days - Held that - There is no denying the fact that the appellant has placed sufficient material on record before this Court in the form of medical treatment file of his daughter, Ms.Ritika Singla, aged around 26 years. The treatment started in the month of June, 2011 and the MRI report was prepared at Bangalore. Other materials have also been placed on record to show that she had been treated in various hospitals at New Delhi, including Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Dr.Doda s Diagnostics & Healthcare and Medanta Hospital at Gurgaon. A perusal of the said record would go on to show that the patient was suffering from complication of blood flow in the femoral veins which had got compressed. The said fact was never specifically denied or controverted in any manner by the respondent-authorities and it is not that the authorities came to a different conclusion that the certificates issued were incorrect and were only created for making out a sufficient cause. The illness was also of the period after the order was passed in March, 2011 and allegedly communicated in June, 2011. Application was very specific and the delay was sought to be condoned on the ground of illness of his married daughter who had been treated at various hospitals all over the country and had been suffering from blood clot cancer disease. - Tribunal was not justified in not allowing the application for condonation of delay and the reasoning given to dismiss the appeal, suffered from perversity - Delay condoned.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Haryana Tax Tribunal to interfere with the Appellate Order dated 21.10.2013.
2. Condonation of delay in filing appeals against assessment and penalty orders.
3. Justification for not filing the appeal within the specified period of limitation.
4. Application of principles of condonation of delay as per legal precedents.
5. Perversity in dismissing the appeal by the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The judgment concerns the jurisdiction of the Haryana Tax Tribunal to interfere with the Appellate Order dated 21.10.2013. The Tribunal declined to interfere in the Appellate Order, which dismissed the appeal against the order of assessment dated 29.03.2011 as time-barred by 761 days. A similar situation arose with the appeal against the penalty order, dismissed as time-barred by 250 days. The issue revolves around the Tribunal's failure to exercise its jurisdiction in these matters.

2. The case involves the condonation of delay in filing appeals against the assessment and penalty orders. The appellant, a dealer in iron & steel, cement, and ACC sheets, sought condonation of delay on the grounds of his daughter's illness with blood clot cancer disease. Despite providing medical records and justifications, the Joint Excise & Taxation Commissioner (JETC) dismissed the appeal for not filing within the specified period of limitation.

3. The justification for not filing the appeal within the specified period of limitation was based on the appellant's daughter's illness and the family's focus on her treatment. The JETC, however, found the explanation insufficient, citing the appellant's active business operations during the period in question and the responsibility of the daughter's in-laws for her care.

4. The judgment extensively applies legal precedents related to the condonation of delay. It references cases such as Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. Mst. Katiji and Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy to establish the principles guiding the assessment of sufficient cause for condoning delay. The court emphasizes the need for a liberal, justice-oriented approach and the importance of substantial justice in such matters.

5. Perversity in dismissing the appeal by the Tribunal is a significant issue addressed in the judgment. The court finds that the Tribunal's reasoning for not allowing the application for condonation of delay was flawed and lacked justification. The court sets aside the Tribunal's order and accepts the application for condonation of delay, directing the JETC to hear both appeals on their merits.

In conclusion, the judgment delves into various legal aspects, including jurisdiction, condonation of delay, justification for delay, application of legal precedents, and perversity in dismissing the appeal. The court's decision favors the appellant, highlighting the importance of a fair and just approach in matters of delay in legal proceedings.