2019 (5) TMI 1042 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - Validity of assessment order - the Assistant Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal on two grounds the petitioner did not file any delay condonation petition; nor has the petitioner appeared before the appellate authority on the appointed date to explain the delay - HELD THAT - The Ext.P6 cannot be treated as an order suffering from any legal infirmity. The only ameliorating factor here is that the matter has not been decided on merits though it involves huge amounts; perhaps the petitioner may have to blame substantially itself for this. Ext.P3 seems to be an application for delay condonation, but it does not contain any details. And for the petitioner's absence on the appointed date, the counsel pleads his own reasons-ill health. It only serves the interest of justice if this Court sets aside the Ext.P6 and provides one last opportunity to the petitioner to set out in detail the grounds for the delay and then invite a speaking order from the appellate authority. Matter remanded to the appellate authority on the condition that the petitioner should pay 20% of the disputed tax in one month's time - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Adverse assessment orders under the CST Act for the years 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15; Rejection of appeal due to failure to file delay condonation petition and appear before the appellate authority; Validity of Ext.P3 series as delay condonation petitions; Justification of the appellate authority's decision; Request for setting aside Ext.P6 and providing another opportunity to the petitioner.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered dealer, faced adverse assessment orders under the CST Act for the years 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15. After a delay of approximately 165 days, the petitioner filed statutory appeals. However, the Assistant Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal through the Ext.P6 order citing two main reasons: the petitioner's failure to file a delay condonation petition and not appearing before the appellate authority on the appointed date to explain the delay. The petitioner challenged this decision by filing a Writ Petition.

The petitioner's counsel argued that delay condonation petitions were indeed filed, referring to the Ext.P3 series. The counsel also explained that due to his indisposition on the appointed date, he could not personally appear before the appellate authority and had sent his staff to request an adjournment. The Government Pleader contended that the petitioner's conduct was indefensible, stating that the Ext.P3 series did not qualify as proper delay condonation petitions.

Upon hearing both sides, the court noted that the Ext.P3 series submitted by the petitioner was insufficient as delay condonation petitions. The court found that the documents were more like covering letters or basic applications mentioning the delay without providing the period or reasons for the delay. The court acknowledged the appellate authority's decision to dismiss the appeals for non-prosecution and the petitioner's failure to file adequate delay condonation petitions.

The court recognized the need for justice in the matter and decided to set aside the Ext.P6 order. The court granted the petitioner one last opportunity to submit a detailed delay condonation petition, emphasizing the importance of providing grounds for the delay. The court remanded the case to the appellate authority with a condition for the petitioner to pay 20% of the disputed tax within a month. If the petitioner filed a comprehensive delay condonation petition within two weeks of receiving a copy of the judgment, the appellate authority would reconsider the delay condonation petition on its merits. Ultimately, the Writ Petition was disposed of in accordance with these decisions.