9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (8) TMI 1068 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxTime Limitation - Validity of assessment order - whether delay can be condoned beyond the period under Section 62 of the KVAT Act or not? - rectification of mistakes apparent on the order of reassessment to the petitioner transactions - HELD THAT - Section 62 makes it very clear that an appeal has to be preferred within a period of 30 days from the date of order of assessment. In the present case, undisputedly, the appeal was not preferred within 30 days from the date of the order of assessment served upon the appellant. Clause 3 provides the Appellate Authority to admit the appeal by condoning the period upto 180 days. In the present case, the appeal was preferred certainly after 30 180 days. There was again a delay of more than 36 days and in those circumstances the Tribunal has also dismissed the appeal. The statute does not provide for condoning the delay beyond 180 days, and therefore, once the statute does not provide for condoning the delay, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal. In the considered opinion of this Court, there can be no extension of limitation even by the Second Appellate Authority and by the First Appellate Authority keeping in view Section 62(3) of the KVAT Act beyond the period of 180 days - appeal dismissed.
Issues:
Delay in filing appeal beyond the statutory period under Section 62 of the KVAT Act. Analysis: The judgment pertains to a case where an order of assessment was passed under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, and subsequent appeals were dismissed as barred by limitation. The primary issue in this case was whether the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned beyond the period specified under Section 62 of the KVAT Act. The relevant statutory provision, Section 62(3), allows the Assessing Authority to admit an appeal filed after the prescribed period of 30 days but within a further period of 180 days if sufficient cause is shown for the delay. The court observed that the appeal in question was filed beyond the initial 30-day period and even beyond the extended 180-day period specified in the statute. The Tribunal had dismissed the appeal based on this delay, which was further upheld by the High Court. The judgment referenced a previous decision by a Division Bench of the same court in the case of Vasavi Industries, which held that condonation of delay beyond 180 days after the initial 30-day period is beyond the jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority. The court emphasized that the statute does not provide for condoning the delay beyond 180 days, thus justifying the dismissal of the appeal in the present case. The court also considered substantial questions of law raised by the parties regarding the legality of rejecting the appeal on grounds of delay, the justification for not considering the appeal on its merits, and the issue of double taxation on the same transaction. The court, however, concluded that there can be no extension of limitation even by the Second Appellate Authority and the First Appellate Authority beyond the statutory period of 180 days as per Section 62(3) of the KVAT Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the orders of the lower authorities and ruling in favor of the revenue and against the assessee. In summary, the judgment underscores the importance of adhering to statutory timelines for filing appeals under the KVAT Act and highlights that the Appellate Authorities cannot extend the limitation period beyond what is expressly provided in the law. The decision reaffirms the principle that delay in filing appeals beyond the specified period, without sufficient cause, cannot be condoned, thereby emphasizing the need for parties to be diligent in pursuing their legal remedies within the prescribed timelines.
|
