9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the Tax Appeal. 2. Explanation and sufficiency of cause for the delay. 3. Applicability of liberal approach in condoning delay for government entities. Summary: Issue 1: Condonation of delay in filing the Tax Appeal The application was preferred for condonation of a delay of 1173 days in filing the Tax Appeal against the order dated 17th August 2009 passed by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad. The applicant-State explained that the delay was due to the administrative procedures required to obtain approval from various departments before filing the appeal. Issue 2: Explanation and sufficiency of cause for the delay The applicant-State argued that the delay was caused by the procedural requirements of the government, which included obtaining opinions from several officers, getting approval from the Finance Department, and then preparing the appeal papers. The applicant emphasized that the delay was not intentional and that a meritorious case would be prejudiced if the delay was not condoned. However, the court found the explanation to be in general terms and lacking specific details. The court noted that even after receiving approval from the Finance Department on 22nd February 2010, the appeal was filed much later on 31st January 2013, without a satisfactory explanation for this extended delay. Issue 3: Applicability of liberal approach in condoning delay for government entities The applicant relied on several judgments, including G. Ramegowda v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, to argue for a liberal approach in condoning delays involving government entities. The court acknowledged that ordinarily, a justice-oriented approach is adopted rather than giving undue importance to technicalities. However, it emphasized that the substantial law of limitation cannot be disregarded without a justified cause. The court referred to the judgment in Lanka Venkateshwarlu (D) by L.Rs. v. State of A.P. & Ors., which held that liberal and justice-oriented approaches cannot be used to jettison the substantial law of limitation. The court also cited Balwant Singh [Dead] v. Jagdish Singh & Ors., which reiterated that "sufficient cause" implies the presence of legal and adequate reasons, and the party must show that it acted bona fide and took all possible steps within its power to avoid the delay. In the absence of a plausible and acceptable explanation, as highlighted in Postmaster General & Ors. vs. Living Media India Limited & Anr., the court refused to condone the delay mechanically, even though the applicant was a government entity. Conclusion: The court concluded that the explanation provided by the applicant was insufficient and did not justify the inordinate delay of 1173 days. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was rejected, and the Tax Appeal {Stamp} No. 290/2013 was also dismissed.
|
