9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 1604 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRevision dismissed for want of prosecution - despite pendency of the revision for more than five years, no steps had been taken to move the application for condonation of delay - HELD THAT - It is observed that the averments made in this application that Registry did not permit removal of defects on account of change of Officer Incharge is absolutely unacceptable on the aspect of submission of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It may be stated that there might have been some difficulty for removing the defects in the existing revision petition owing to change of Officer Incharge and difference in signature. However, nothing prevented the Department from filing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act because the affidavit in support thereof could have be sworn by the Officer-Incharge appointed at any point of time. There was no requirement of the same Officer Incharge who affirmed the affidavit in support of the revision petition to file the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The averments made in the application for justifying the non-filing of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act are flimsy and farfetched and totally unacceptable - the misc. application is rejected as being devoid of merit.
Issues:
1. Dismissal of Sales Tax Revision (No.66/2017) for want of prosecution. 2. Interlocutory application for recalling the order dated 27.04.2022. 3. Grounds for recalling the order. 4. Justification for the delay in filing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 5. Submission of additional affidavit for justifying the inability to file the application for condonation of delay. Analysis: 1. The Sales Tax Revision (No.66/2017) was dismissed due to want of prosecution after being pending for over five years without any steps taken to move the application for condonation of delay. 2. An interlocutory application was filed for recalling the order dated 27.04.2022 on the grounds that the Officer Incharge was changed during the pendency of the revision, causing difficulties in removing defects pointed out by the Registry. 3. The petitioner submitted that due to inadvertence and restructuring in the department of Commercial Taxes, the application for condonation of delay could not be filed in time. The delay was attributed to the bulk reshuffling and transferring of case files, leading to complexity and inadvertence. 4. The petitioner's counsel contended that the learned Additional Advocate General did not take appropriate steps for filing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The new Officer Incharge faced challenges in removing defects due to the change and differences in signatures, which led to the delay in filing the application. 5. The Court found the justifications provided for the delay in filing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to be unacceptable and flimsy. The additional affidavit filed by the CTO did not offer a valid reason for the delay of nearly five years in submitting the revision. As a result, the misc. application for recalling the order was rejected for lacking merit. This detailed analysis highlights the reasons for the dismissal of the Sales Tax Revision, the grounds for the interlocutory application, justifications for the delay, and the Court's decision based on the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel.
|
