2016 (5) TMI 887 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Condonation of delay - 120 days - Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 - Whether the Ld. Tribunal was justified in not condoning the delay wherein there exists a sufficient cause for the same - Held that - the appellant submitted that the order dated 31.1.2013 passed by the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Mobile Wing) was received by the appellant on 14.5.2013 and the appeal was to be filed on or before 14.6.2013. The appellant after receiving the order handed over the complete file to Shri Subhash Chander Satija Advocate who at that time was undergoing the treatment of liver transplant at Chennai. He remained admitted there from 23.5.2013 to 7.8.2013 and ultimately died on 7.8.2013. The appellant collected the papers from the office of the said counsel after two months from his death and filed the appeal against the order on 17.10.2013. The appeal was filed late by 120 days. In such circumstances delay in filing the appeal before the DETC(C) was unintentional and due to the circumstances beyond the control of the appellant. The explanation furnished by the appellant appears to be plausible and therefore leads to the conclusion that there was sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal. Once that was so the delay in filing the appeal before the DETC(A) deserves to be condoned and appeal heard on merits by the DETC(A). Appeal allowed by way of remend

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal under Section 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal under Section 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 against an order passed by the Value Added Tax Tribunal. The primary question was whether the delay of 120 days in filing the appeal before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) should be condoned. The legal position regarding condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was examined. The courts have the power to condone delay if sufficient cause is shown, and the expression "sufficient cause" is elastic enough to enable a meaningful application of the law. The law of limitation is based on public policy to ensure legal remedies are availed without undue delay.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasized a liberal approach in condoning short delays and a stricter approach for inordinate delays. The court must examine each case individually to determine if the delay was due to circumstances beyond the party's control. The appellant's explanation for the delay, involving the serious illness and subsequent death of the advocate handling the case, was considered plausible. It was concluded that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal, and thus, the delay should be condoned.

Therefore, the decision was made to set aside the orders passed by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal. The matter was remitted to the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) to adjudicate the appeal on merits after hearing both parties in accordance with the law.