2018 (11) TMI 895 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Dismissal of review application on the ground of time bar - principles of natural justice - Held that - The Tribunal should have granted effective opportunity of hearing to the parties while considering the fact as to whether the copy of order passed by the Tribunal was actually delivered to the addressee or the counsel for the appellant appearing before the Tribunal. In case, it was not served, the appellant may have a case that the review application filed by him was within time. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing review application before the Tribunal.
2. Dismissal of review application as time-barred.
3. Consideration of decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in a related case.
4. Requirement of filing two review petitions for separate Acts.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an appeal against the order dismissing their review application as time-barred. The appellant claimed that the copy of the order was not received by them or their counsel, and the Tribunal was non-functional for a significant period. The appellant argued that the review application was not time-barred as it was filed immediately after receiving the certified copy of the order. The appellant also presented a certificate from their counsel stating that they did not receive the order. The Tribunal dismissed the review application based on the presumption that the order, sent via registered post, was delivered. The appellant contended that they were not given an opportunity to prove non-receipt of the order, and there was an error in the Tribunal's decision.

2. The State counsel argued that since the order was dispatched via registered post and not returned unserved, it was presumed delivered, justifying the dismissal of the review application as time-barred. However, the Court opined that the Tribunal should have allowed both parties an effective opportunity to present evidence regarding the delivery of the order before dismissing the review application. The Court emphasized the importance of ensuring due process and hearing both sides before making a decision on the timeliness of the review application.

3. The appellant raised the issue of whether the Tribunal should have considered a previous judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in a related case. The appellant argued that the issue in question was settled by a Division Bench judgment of the High Court. This aspect was not the primary focus of the Court's decision, but it highlighted the need for the Tribunal to provide a fair opportunity for both parties to present their arguments and evidence before reaching a conclusion.

4. Another issue raised was whether the appellant was required to file two review petitions for separate Acts. The appellant questioned the necessity of filing two appeals for the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, when the legal issue pertained to the sale of exempted goods. The appellant sought clarity on whether separate appeals were warranted or if a single appeal could address the matter adequately. The Court did not delve deeply into this issue but directed the matter to be reconsidered by the Tribunal, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing and consideration of all relevant aspects.

In conclusion, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration after affording both parties an opportunity to be heard. The directive aimed to ensure a fair process and proper consideration of the issues raised by the appellant.