2009 (3) TMI 426 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Codonation of delay- The appellant filed the appeal on the ground the delay was condoned by the Tribunal while no sufficient cause put forward by the respondent. Held that- whether it is the State or the individual, unless explanation is offered for the delay that it is either reasonable or satisfactory to the satisfaction of the court, delay can not be condoned. The appellant has rightly submitted that no sufficient cause was shown by the State of Punjab for condoning the delay. The appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal by State of Punjab, condonation of delay by Tribunal without sufficient cause, consideration of merits of the case by Tribunal, compliance with Limitation Act.

Analysis:
The judgment involves a dispute regarding the delay in filing an appeal by the State of Punjab under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005. The Tribunal had condoned the delay in filing the appeal based on the reason that a significant amount of revenue was involved. The appellant, M/s. Sachdeva and Sons Rice Mills Private Limited, challenged this decision, arguing that the State of Punjab did not provide a sufficient cause for the delay, and the Tribunal did not consider the merits of the case while granting condonation of delay.

The High Court observed that the Tribunal's decision to condone the delay solely based on the consideration of huge revenue was not sufficient. The Court emphasized that regardless of whether it is the State or an individual, a satisfactory explanation for the delay must be provided for condonation. The Court agreed with the appellant's contention that the State of Punjab failed to demonstrate a reasonable cause for the delay and did not show diligence in pursuing the case. It was highlighted that the provisions of the Limitation Act must be adhered to, and condonation cannot be granted without a valid reason.

The High Court concluded that the Tribunal erred in not providing reasons for condoning the delay and not addressing the merits of the case. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal for a decision on the questions of law raised by the respondent-State within a specified timeframe. The Tribunal was directed to notify the parties of the next hearing date.

In summary, the judgment focused on the importance of providing a valid and satisfactory explanation for delay in filing appeals, regardless of the party involved. It emphasized the need for compliance with the Limitation Act and the requirement to consider the merits of a case while deciding on condonation of delay.