2017 (11) TMI 1682 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Condonation of delay in filing an appeal - application under section 5 of the Limitation Act - Held that - Assuming for the sake of argument that since the papers were not traceable no mala fide or deliberate negligence could be attributed to the officers even thereafter from 2.6.2017 it has taken more than three months for all concerned to ensure that the appeal is filed before the High Court. When there was already such inordinate delay one would expect the concerned officers and all concerned in filing the tax appeal to ensure that the needful is done promptly. Therefore it cannot be said that the concerned officers were diligently pursuing the matter and had taken all necessary steps to ensure that the appeal is filed within time. In the opinion of this court considering the delay that has occasioned at each stage in the filing of the present appeal it cannot be said that sufficient cause has been made out for condoning the delay caused in filing the appeal. No sufficient cause has been made out to condone such delay - Decided against the revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the tax appeal.
2. Explanation and justification for the delay.
3. Legal precedents and principles applicable to condonation of delay.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of delay in filing the tax appeal:
The applicant, the State of Gujarat, sought condonation of a delay of 549 days in filing an appeal against the order of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal dated 8.12.2015. The delay was attributed to inadvertence and misplacement of case papers in the Office of the Government Pleader.

2. Explanation and justification for the delay:
The applicant explained that the delay occurred due to the untraceable case papers forwarded to the Office of the Government Pleader, which caused a delay in drafting and filing the tax appeal. The learned Assistant Government Pleader argued that the delay was a bona fide error and should be considered for condonation. The applicant cited several Supreme Court decisions advocating a liberal approach in condoning delays, especially when the government is a party, emphasizing public interest and substantial justice.

In opposition, the respondent's advocate contended that the delay was inordinate and not sufficiently explained. The respondent relied on Supreme Court judgments stating that sufficient cause must be established for condonation, and events or circumstances arising after the expiration of the limitation period cannot constitute sufficient cause.

3. Legal precedents and principles applicable to condonation of delay:
The applicant referred to the Supreme Court decisions in G. Ramegowda v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, N. Balkrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, State of Haryana v. Chandramani and others, and C.I.T. v. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation Limited, which support a liberal approach in condoning delays involving government parties.

The respondent cited Supreme Court judgments in Pundlik Jalam Patil (dead) by LRs v. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and another, Commissioner Of Wealth Tax, Bombay v. Amateur Riders Club, Bombay, and Postmaster General and others v. Living Media India Limited and another, which emphasize the need for a plausible and acceptable explanation for the delay and that the law of limitation binds everyone, including the government.

Judgment Analysis:
The court analyzed the timeline and reasons provided by the applicant for the delay. It noted significant delays at each stage, including forwarding the proposal to the Finance Department, the misplacement of papers in the Office of the Government Pleader, and the subsequent lack of prompt action even after the papers were found. The court found that the applicant failed to provide specific dates or details regarding the discovery of the misplaced papers and the steps taken thereafter.

The court concluded that the applicant did not demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay, as required by the law of limitation. The court emphasized that even government entities are bound by the law of limitation and that bureaucratic indifference cannot justify inordinate delays. The court held that the applicant had not been diligent in pursuing the matter and had not taken necessary steps to ensure timely filing of the appeal.

Conclusion:
The court rejected the application for condonation of delay, discharged the rule, and made no order as to costs. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to the law of limitation and the requirement for a plausible and acceptable explanation for delays, even for government parties.