9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 123 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxCondonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 31 of the TNGST Act - holding company, holding 100% share of subsidiary company, Annamalaiar Textiles (P) Ltd. - transfer of old machinery and generator to subsidiary company without payment of tax - penalty imposed under section 12(5) of the TNGST Act - is the delay of 4709 days condonable holding that the delay was genuine? - Held that - TNGST Act is the self-contained statute and Section 31(1) and the first proviso of the Act provide a period of limitation (30 days 30 days) and, any period exceeding 60 days cannot be condoned either by the said Appellate Authority or by the Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is also guilty of delay and laches and even at the time of disposal of T.P.No.136 of 1997 by the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal, Chennai, on 03.07.1997, has failed to place the relevant and necessary facts and therefore, the Tribunal on misconstruing the facts, had passed the order as if the objections have not been submitted. Petition dismissed - delay not condoned - decided against petitioner.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the pre-assessment notice dated 31.03.1986. 2. Service and validity of the assessment order dated 15.05.1986. 3. Delay in filing an appeal and whether the delay can be condoned under Section 31 of the TNGST Act. 4. Jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to condone the delay. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Pre-assessment Notice Dated 31.03.1986: The petitioner challenged the pre-assessment notice dated 31.03.1986, which proposed to levy tax on the transfer of machinery and a generator to its subsidiary company. The petitioner claimed exemption for this transfer, believing it was not taxable under the TNGST Act. The pre-assessment notice was contested in W.P.No.4593 of 1986, and an interim injunction was granted on 20.05.1986. Despite this, the first respondent served the assessment order dated 15.05.1986, confirming the proposals in the pre-assessment notice. 2. Service and Validity of the Assessment Order Dated 15.05.1986: The petitioner argued that the assessment order dated 15.05.1986 was not properly served. However, the court noted that the order was served on 28.05.1986, and the petitioner was aware of it. The petitioner did not take timely action to challenge or respond to the assessment order, despite having filed objections to the pre-assessment notice on 05.05.1986. 3. Delay in Filing an Appeal and Whether the Delay Can Be Condoned Under Section 31 of the TNGST Act: The petitioner filed an appeal against the assessment order after obtaining a certified copy on 16.04.1999, resulting in a delay of nearly 13 years (4709 days). Section 31 of the TNGST Act stipulates that an appeal must be filed within thirty days of the order's service, with a possible extension of another thirty days if sufficient cause is shown. The court held that the delay was not sufficiently explained and could not be condoned under the TNGST Act, which is a self-contained statute. The court referenced the case of Quantas Engineers & Promoters (P) Ltd. v. TNTST (Mad) to emphasize that the limitation period cannot be extended beyond what is prescribed by the statute. 4. Jurisdiction of the Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to Condon the Delay: The petitioner argued that the court should use its jurisdiction under Article 226 to condone the delay. However, the court cited the decision in Un of Ind v. Popula Con Co., stating that Article 226 cannot be used to circumvent statutory limitations. The court concluded that the delay in filing the appeal could not be condoned, even under its constitutional jurisdiction, as the petitioner did not diligently prosecute the case and failed to explain the significant delay. Conclusion: The court dismissed the writ petition, confirming the order in M.T.A.No.34 of 2002 dated 28.02.2003, and held that the delay in filing the appeal was not condonable under Section 31 of the TNGST Act. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory limitations and the petitioner's failure to provide a plausible explanation for the delay. There was no order as to costs.
|
