2018 (11) TMI 1606 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - inadequate reasons given for delay - HELD THAT - In the facts of the present case, considering the delay was of more than 689 days, the explanation offered was wholly inadequate and facile. Neither the name or particulars of the officials or their designations were disclosed nor the extra duties assigned to them were disclosed nor there was any other stand disclosed as may establish credibility of the explanation. It appears that the explanation was merely a pretence and/or an after thought to seek condonation of delay without stating true and correct facts. Also, there is no allegation of fraud or collusion on part of the assessee in causing the delay. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Delay condonation in filing second appeal by revenue against order of First Appellate Authority.

Analysis:
The present writ petition challenges the order passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Agra, condoning a delay of 689 days in filing the second appeal by the revenue against the order of the First Appellate Authority. The petitioner, a registered dealer in electronics goods, had been assessed to tax, and the input tax credit was reversed by the Assessing Officer. The First Appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Agra. The second appeal, filed with a delay condonation application citing excess work and other duties, was accepted by the Tribunal without a detailed discussion or clear finding on the satisfaction of the cause shown for the delay. The petitioner argues that the Tribunal's lenient approach in condoning the delay was unwarranted, as the revenue failed to provide any substantial reasons justifying the delay. The petitioner emphasizes the importance of timely closure of tax disputes for business certainty and contends that the Tribunal should have scrutinized the delay condonation application more rigorously.

The petitioner further asserts that the Tribunal's decision to condone the delay without a genuine and bona fide explanation sets a dangerous precedent, allowing negligent conduct to go unchecked. The Tribunal's acceptance of the revenue's inadequate explanation, lacking specific details or credible justifications for the delay, indicates a lack of due diligence in evaluating the condonation request. The court emphasizes the need for authentic and truthful explanations in delay condonation matters, especially when significant delays are involved. In this case, the delay of over 689 days coupled with the insubstantial and superficial nature of the explanation provided by the revenue leads the court to conclude that the condonation was unjustified. The court finds no evidence of fraud or collusion by the assessee in causing the delay, further weakening the revenue's position.

In light of the above analysis, the court allows the writ petition, setting aside the Tribunal's order and dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue due to the delay. The judgment underscores the importance of genuine and credible explanations in delay condonation cases, emphasizing the need for courts to scrutinize such applications thoroughly to maintain the integrity of legal processes and prevent undue leniency in condoning delays.