9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (7) TMI 993 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxCondonation of delay - 548 days in preferring the Appeals - Revenue appeal - Held that - Merely because applicant is a State, delay cannot be condoned without a proper explanation as Section 5 of the Limitation Act is equally applicable to the State as well. In the instant case, there is absolutely no averment in the Notices of Motion or even in the submissions as to which were those peculiar or distinctive aspects of the Government functioning, which resulted in causing delay of about two years in preferring these appeals. Therefore, having regard to the tenor of the averments in the application, we have no hesitation in our mind to reject these first two Notices of Motion on failure of the Applicant-Appellants to bring their case within the four corners of sufficient cause , as contemplated under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 28. Even as regards the third Notice of Motion, though the details of the various internal correspondence are given and the cause is attributed to the same and also to the fact that the Special Leave Petition was preferred in the Hon ble Supreme Court of India against the order of the Tribunal and hence there was delay, we are not at all convinced by the same. It is pertinent to note that the impugned decision of the Tribunal is dated 19th June 2009 and the Special Leave Petition was disposed of on 7th February 2011 itself. The Appeals are, however, preferred on 3rd February 2016 along with these Notices of Motion. Thus, even if the period consumed in prosecuting Special Leave Petition filed in the Supreme Court of India, is excluded from consideration, there is a delay of about five years. Such a delay can hardly be explained by attributing the same merely to the functioning of the Government and internal correspondence. In this respect also, it is pertinent to note that the Government has given the sanction to file Writ Petition on 13th December 2011 itself. The Draft Appeal received approval thereafter from the concerned Department on 16th December 2015. No explanation at all is offered for this delay of four years and the subsequent delay of again about two months in preferring this Appeal with Notice of Motion. Such a delay cannot be condoned on the spacious plea of the characteristics of Government functioning.
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals under Section 27 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002. 2. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to the proceedings under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002. 3. Sufficiency of cause for condonation of delay. Detailed Analysis: 1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals: The Revenue filed three Notices of Motion seeking condonation of delay in filing appeals against the orders of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, Mumbai. The delays were 548 days for the first two Notices of Motion and 2288 days for the third Notice of Motion. The reasons provided for the delays were general and vague, attributing them to procedural mandates in government functioning and internal correspondence. 2. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963: The Respondents opposed the Notices of Motion on the grounds that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, does not apply to proceedings under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002. They relied on a previous judgment of the Bombay High Court in Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, VAT-III, Mumbai Vs. Jonson and Jonson Ltd. & Anr. (2015) 79 VST 478 (Bom), which held that the Limitation Act's provisions are restricted in sales tax matters. 3. Sufficiency of Cause for Condonation of Delay: The Court examined whether the Applicant-Appellant had made out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The Court noted that the reasons provided were insufficient and lacked specific details. The general statement attributing the delay to procedural mandates in government functioning was deemed inadequate. The Court emphasized that the government, being the largest litigant, should act as a model litigant and not expect automatic condonation of delay without proper explanation. Judgment: - The Court held that the Notices of Motion for condonation of delay were maintainable under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002, as the Appellate Authority under Section 26 of the Act has the power to extend the period of limitation if sufficient cause is shown. - However, the Court found that the Applicant-Appellant failed to make out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay in all three Notices of Motion. The reasons provided were general, vague, and lacked specific details. - The Court referred to previous judgments, including G. Ramegauda Major vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer and Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr., which emphasized that the government must provide a proper explanation for delays and cannot rely on general statements about procedural mandates. - The Court dismissed all three Notices of Motion due to the failure to provide sufficient cause for the delays. Consequently, the appeals were also disposed of. Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the Notices of Motion for condonation of delay due to the failure of the Applicant-Appellant to provide sufficient cause for the delays. The Court emphasized that the government must act as a model litigant and cannot expect automatic condonation of delay without proper explanation.
|
