2023 (6) TMI 56 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Condonation of delay in filing of appeal - Service of order - order was sent to old address - Revenue s main contention is that the orders were served at the address given by assessee and it is assessee s duty to intimate the change in the address if any - HELD THAT - It is relevant to note that the assessee s address mentioned in the memorandum of petition, the application for condonation of delay and written submissions filed before the KAT are the same as mentioned in the postal acknowledgement receipt. This clearly shows that assessee s main contention that he had changed his address is factually incorrect. Therefore, the contention urged by assessee that the orders were sent to his old address is untenable. The learned KAT has analyzed the facts in extenso and rightly recorded a finding that there was no proper explanation for the delay. Assessee has reiterated the same grounds seeking condonation of delay. There are no merit in this revision petition and impugned order passed by the KAT does not call for any interference - Revision Petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment addresses the validity of service of appeal orders under Rule 176 of the KVAT Rules, the dismissal of appeals by the Tribunal due to delay, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the filing of appeals.

Validity of Service of Appeal Orders:
The petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in construction and sale of flats, challenged the service of appeal orders for the assessment periods of 2010-11 and 2012-13 at their old business premises. The petitioner argued that the orders were not served at the correct address as required by Rule 176 of the KVAT Rules. However, the court found that the address mentioned in the postal acknowledgment receipt matched the address provided by the petitioner in various submissions, indicating that the petitioner's claim of changing the address was incorrect. Consequently, the court held that the service of appeal orders at the old address was valid.

Dismissal of Appeals Due to Delay:
The petitioner contended that the delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal was due to the COVID-19 pandemic and not on the merits of the case. The Tribunal had dismissed the appeals for the assessment periods of 2010-11 and 2012-13 citing insufficient cause for the delay. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the petitioner failed to provide a proper explanation for the delay. Despite the petitioner's arguments seeking condonation of delay, the court found no merit in the revision petition and confirmed the Tribunal's order of dismissal.

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic:
The petitioner highlighted the challenges faced during the COVID-19 period, which allegedly hindered the timely filing of appeals. However, the court focused on the lack of a valid explanation for the delay rather than solely attributing it to the pandemic. The court's decision to dismiss the revision petition and uphold the Tribunal's order indicates a strict approach towards adherence to procedural timelines, even during exceptional circumstances like a pandemic.