2015 (4) TMI 1268 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Condonation of delay of 81 days in filing appeal - Jurisdiction - power of appellate Assistant Commissioner to condone delay beyond 60 days - section 47(1) of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007 - HELD THAT - Accepting the sufficient cause for delay supported with medical certificate, this court is inclined to set aside the impugned order and accordingly the same is set aside and remitted back to the appellate authority for deciding the appeal on merits after hearing the petitioner. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the appellate Assistant Commissioner to entertain appeal beyond statutory period.
2. Condonation of delay in filing appeal under section 47(1) of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a writ petition against the order passed by the appellate Assistant Commissioner, arguing that the appellate Assistant Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal beyond the statutory period of 60 days from the date of service of the order. The petitioner had filed an appeal against an order imposing a 100% penalty, explaining an 81-day delay due to medical reasons supported by evidence. Citing a similar case from the High Court of Allahabad, the petitioner contended that the delay should have been condoned. The High Court noted the provision under section 47(1) of the Act and the proviso allowing for condonation of delay within a further period of 30 days if sufficient cause is shown. The appellate Assistant Commissioner refused to condone the delay, leading the petitioner to approach the court.

2. The High Court referred to the decision of the High Court of Allahabad in a similar matter where a delay of 236 days was condoned based on sufficient cause supported by a medical certificate. In the present case, the petitioner had filed the appeal with an 86-day delay, claiming sufficient cause. The High Court found the reasoning in the Allahabad case applicable and set aside the impugned order, remitting the case back to the appellate authority for a decision on merits after hearing the petitioner. The court also noted that the petitioner had already paid a sum towards the admitted liability. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.