2019 (8) TMI 1018 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Condonation of delay of 1114 days in filing review application - Revenue appeal - casual approach - HELD THAT - It is not disputed that there was no fraud, misrepresentation, collusion or jurisdictional error etc., so as to warrant interference by the Revisional Authority and consequent revision of the assessment order. As regards dismissal of the Review Application having been filed after a delay of 1114 days, the learned Tribunal, in paras 4 and 5 of the impugned order (A-4) has already given detailed reasons for not accepting the vague and general grounds given for the inordinate delay. No fault can be found with the same - further, even the present appeal has been filed after a delay of 342 days and again the reason given is the time spent at various levels in obtaining permission to file the present appeal. This casual approach on the part of the appellant is not acceptable, especially when high stakes involving public exchequer are involved. The present appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merits as well as on the ground of delay

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of review application by the Tribunal on the ground of limitation
2. Ignoring the principle of justice over technicalities
3. Failure to adjudicate on the merits of the case
4. Applicability of the judgment in Ashok Leyland Ltd. case
5. Sustainability of the Tribunal's order
6. Any other legal questions for adjudication

Issue 1: Dismissal of review application on the ground of limitation
The appellant challenged the dismissal of the review application by the Tribunal on the ground of limitation. The Tribunal had dismissed the review application as time-barred, filed 1114 days after the order. The High Court found that the Tribunal had provided detailed reasons for rejecting the vague and general grounds for the delay. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural timelines, especially in cases involving public funds.

Issue 2: Ignoring the principle of justice over technicalities
The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in disregarding the principle that justice should not be lost due to technicalities like limitation periods. However, the High Court emphasized the need for procedural compliance, especially in matters concerning public money. The Court noted that the Tribunal had valid reasons for dismissing the review application based on the significant delay in filing.

Issue 3: Failure to adjudicate on the merits of the case
The appellant contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the merits of the case despite its importance. The High Court observed that since there was no fraud, misrepresentation, collusion, or jurisdictional error warranting revision of the assessment order, the Tribunal's decision to not delve into the merits was justified.

Issue 4: Applicability of the judgment in Ashok Leyland Ltd. case
The appellant questioned the Tribunal's reliance on the Ashok Leyland Ltd. case, arguing that it was distinguishable from the present case. The High Court did not find merit in this argument, stating that the Tribunal's application of the legal principles from the Ashok Leyland case was appropriate based on the facts presented.

Issue 5: Sustainability of the Tribunal's order
The appellant raised concerns about the sustainability of the Tribunal's order. However, the High Court, after careful consideration, found the Tribunal's decision to be legally sound and upheld it, emphasizing the lack of merits in the appellant's arguments.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal due to the lack of merits and the significant delay in filing, underscoring the importance of procedural compliance, especially in matters involving public funds.