2019 (1) TMI 897 - AAAR - VAT and Sales Tax

Cononation of delay of 49 days in filing appeal - it is claimed that delay is caused due to administrative reasons - discrepancy in the date of receipt of the impugned order - wilful delay or not? - Held that - There is substance in the contention of Ld. Counsel for the respondent that there are discrepancies in the appellant s application and affidavit. The appellant has not taken care to file proper affidavit in this Authority. The appellant ought to have been more careful. However, having considered the explanation offered by the appellant and examined in the light of Section 20 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, I am of the opinion that the delay needs to be condoned - It appears that delay is caused because of administrative exigencies. The appellant has made out sufficient cause which prevented it from filing the appeal in time. Copy of the impugned order received by the appellant bears a stamp qua on which date 10.08.2015 is mentioned. So the impugned order is received by the appellant on 10.08.2015. If that is so then appeal filed by the appellant on 30.12.2015 before this Authority is within the extended period of 150 days. The extended period is contemplated in the first proviso to Section 20(3) of the CST Act as quoted above. Thus, It is not possible to come to the conclusion that the appellant is guilty of any sharp practice or has willfully suppressed or concealed material facts - Since the appellant has made out sufficient cause, the delay is condoned - application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing the appeal, Condonation of delay, Discrepancies in dates of receipt of the impugned order, Willful delay, Administrative exigencies, Provisions of Section 20 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Authority sought condonation of a 49-day delay in filing the appeal. The appellant explained the delay citing administrative reasons, including vacant positions and heavy workload. The appellant received the impugned order on 10.08.2015, contrary to initial discrepancies in dates mentioned in the application and affidavit. The respondent opposed the condonation, pointing out the inconsistencies and lack of a proper explanation. The appellant, upon realizing the errors, tendered an apology and clarified the actual date of receipt. The Authority acknowledged the discrepancies but considered the appellant's explanation and the provisions of Section 20 of the CST Act.

Upon examination, the Authority found that the delay was due to administrative exigencies and accepted the appellant's explanation as sufficient cause for the delay. Referring to the first proviso of Section 20(3) of the CST Act, the Authority noted that the appeal filed within 150 days of receipt of the impugned order fell within the extended period allowed. The Authority distinguished the case from precedents where willful suppression of facts was involved, emphasizing that the appellant did not engage in sharp practices. Consequently, the Authority granted the condonation of delay, cautioning the appellant to be more diligent in the future.

In conclusion, the Authority acknowledged the discrepancies in the appellant's submission but ultimately accepted the explanation provided for the delay in filing the appeal. By applying the relevant provisions of the CST Act and considering the circumstances, the Authority decided to condone the delay. The judgment highlighted the importance of due diligence while emphasizing that the appellant's conduct did not amount to willful suppression of facts, leading to the dismissal of the respondent's opposition and the disposal of the application.