2016 (1) TMI 143 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Condonation of delay - Tribunal refused to condoned the delay of 448 days which occurred in filing of the Reference applications. - Held that - The Tribunal, in the impugned order found that the delay is of 448 days. A liberal approach will not enable it to condone such a erroneous delay. There is no explanation forthcoming. A vague statement or a general remark of administrative difficulties was not enough. The version orally canvassed was not supported by any affidavit. The reasons that are assigned from paragraphs 9 to 12 in the impugned order do not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record or perversity warranting our interference in the writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court in the case of Office of the Chief Post Master General v/s Living Media India Ltd 2012 (4) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA has held that the Government bodies are required to be informed that unless they have reasonable and acceptable reasons for delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural redtape in the process. Delay cannot be condoned. - The Writ Petitions are devoid of merits and are dismissed. - Decided against the revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing Reference Applications for condonation, Proper explanation for delay, Judicial review of Tribunal's decision on delay condonation, Application of legal principles on condonation of delay.

Delay in filing Reference Applications for condonation:
The case involves the Commissioner of Sales TaxUnion Territory of Daman and Diu filing writ petitions under Article 226 to challenge the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal, Diu, not condoning the delay of 448 days in filing Reference Applications. The delay occurred due to administrative difficulties in the Department, with the Reference Applications not being drafted and filed until 31st July, 2013, despite approval by the Commissioner. The Tribunal dismissed the applications seeking condonation of delay due to lack of proper explanation for the delay.

Proper explanation for delay:
The Petitioner argued that the delay was due to administrative difficulties typical in Government Departments, emphasizing that the delay was not intentional but a result of the file passing through multiple officers. However, the Tribunal found the explanation insufficient, stating that a vague statement about administrative difficulties was not enough to justify the delay. The lack of a detailed explanation supported by an affidavit led to the dismissal of the condonation applications.

Judicial review of Tribunal's decision on delay condonation:
Upon review, the High Court examined the order under challenge and noted that the Commissioner did not take steps to rectify deficiencies in the condonation applications despite seeking time to do so. The Court found that the Tribunal's decision to not condone the delay was justified, as the reasons provided in the impugned order were not erroneous or perverse. The Court emphasized that a liberal approach could not condone such a significant delay without a valid explanation.

Application of legal principles on condonation of delay:
The High Court referred to a Supreme Court case emphasizing that Government bodies must have reasonable and acceptable reasons for delay, and condonation of delay should not be an anticipated benefit. The Supreme Court highlighted that Government Departments have a special obligation to perform their duties diligently. Applying these principles, the High Court concluded that the impugned orders did not warrant interference in the writ jurisdiction, as the delay was not adequately explained. The Court dismissed the Writ Petitions, stating they lacked merit based on the legal principles and circumstances of the case.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of delay in filing Reference Applications, the requirement for a proper explanation for delay, the judicial review of the Tribunal's decision, and the application of legal principles regarding condonation of delay.