2022 (2) TMI 853 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Condonation of delay of 2 years and 300 days in filing a Tax Revision Application - time limitation - Goa Value Added Tax Act, 2005 - HELD THAT - The provisions of Section 39 of the Act are quite clear in that they provide for a limitation of only 60 days against the order of the Administrative Tribunal. Instead, the applicant instituted this revision application after the delay of 2 years and 300 days. The contention about alleged bonafide belief on the part of the applicant cannot be accepted in the aforesaid facts and circumstances. Rather, it is clear that this revision was filed only after the applicant received the notice for provisional freezing of his account on 05/01/2021. Accordingly, we are satisfied that no sufficient cause has been shown condoning the delay of 2 years and 300 days in this case. From time to time, this matter is adjourned to enable the learned Advocate for the applicant to obtain instructions as to whether the applicants are willing to secure the tax amount or some part. This was to test the bonafide of the Applicant. After several adjournments, the applicant has stated that they are not in a position even to secure the tax or part. Though this is not a consideration for either condoning or not condoning the delay, we think that the entire conduct of the applicant does suggest that the applicant was far from diligent and the proceedings were taken up only to delay or avoid the payment of the tax as determined. The Applicant perhaps carried the impression that the mere pendency of proceedings might delay the action from the tax authorities and took full advantage of this impression to delay the proceedings. Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing Tax Revision Application under the Goa Value Added Tax Act, 2005.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought condonation of a delay of 2 years and 300 days in filing a Tax Revision Application under the Goa Value Added Tax Act, 2005 before the High Court. The petitioner claimed that they were under a bona fide belief that the limitation for filing the revision before the Court was three years. However, the respondent argued that the delay was intentional to delay proceedings and avoid tax payment. The Court examined the chronology of dates and events provided by the Assistant State Tax Officer, which indicated a pattern of delaying tactics by the petitioner. The First Appeal was filed after a significant delay, and the Second Appeal was dismissed for non-deposit. The Court noted that the revision application was filed only after a notice for provisional freezing of the petitioner's accounts was issued, indicating a lack of diligence on the petitioner's part.

The Court held that no sufficient cause was shown to condone the delay of 2 years and 300 days. Despite the petitioner's claim of a bona fide belief, the Court found that the delay was intentional and aimed at avoiding tax payment. The Court observed that the petitioner's conduct suggested a lack of diligence and an attempt to delay proceedings. The Court dismissed the application without imposing any costs, indicating its disapproval of the petitioner's actions. Consequently, the Tax Revision Application was also disposed of, as it would not survive after the dismissal of the initial application.