2016 (2) TMI 96 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Condonation of Delay of 29 days in filing appeal from the date of receipt of return memo - TNVAT - Held that - The 1st respondent passed the impugned orders on account of delay in representation which he cannot condone. This Court on being satisfied with the reasons adduced in the affidavit filed by the petitioner is inclined to accept the same. Accordingly the delay caused in representing the appeal papers before the Appellate Authority is condoned. The petitioner is directed to represent the appeal papers before the 1st respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such representation the Appellate Authority/1st respondent is directed to accept the same if they are otherwise in order and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. - Delay condoned.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging impugned orders, violation of principles of natural justice, delay in representation of appeal papers.

Challenging Impugned Orders:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, challenged revision notices issued by the second respondent for alleged wrong availment of ITC and sales suppression. Despite filing objections, the second respondent passed orders revising assessments without considering the objections. The petitioner later filed rectification applications, leading to revised orders. Subsequently, statutory appeals were filed against the original revision orders, facing delays due to procedural issues. The first respondent dismissed the appeals for being filed beyond the stipulated time, prompting the petitioner to file Writ Petitions.

Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner argued that the first respondent's dismissal of appeals without a personal hearing violated principles of natural justice. The petitioner contended that reasons for the delay in representing appeal papers were not considered by the appellate authority. Seeking quashing of the impugned orders, the petitioner emphasized the lack of opportunity for a personal hearing.

Delay in Representation of Appeal Papers:
The first respondent's orders were based on the delay in representing appeal papers, which was considered non-condonable. However, the High Court, after reviewing the reasons provided by the petitioner, decided to condone the delay. The Court directed the petitioner to represent the appeal papers within two weeks for further consideration by the first respondent, emphasizing the need for due opportunity of hearing. The Court set a timeline of twelve weeks for the disposal of the appeals in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the Writ Petitions, directing the petitioner to represent the appeal papers within a specified period for further consideration by the first respondent. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and providing opportunities for personal hearings in such matters.