2013 (8) TMI 714 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Condonation of Delay - Delay in filing appeal by revenue - Held that - Applications were allowed by condoning the delay of 722 days - Rule issued in each case was made absolute The affidavit - contents rendered reasonable explanation for such delay and gives reasons why appeal could not be presented within the prescribed time limit - It was pointed out that upon receipt of the judgment of the Tribunal, after obtaining opinion of the concerned officers, a decision was taken for filing the appeal - looking to the nature of delay explanation rendered by the appellant in various affidavits and the tax impact in the appeal the delay was condoned Commissioner of Income Tax V. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation Ltd 2010 (12) TMI 675 - Supreme Court of India . The applicant had attempted to explain the delay which can be attributed to the administrative reasons and particularly consumption of time at the office of the Government Pleader - The Court needed to take into account the interest of justice and particularly public interest and the question raised in the Tax Appeals was a substantive question of law and the stake involved in these Tax Appeals was also high, this additional aspect cannot be disregarded while condoning the delay - the Court needs to be alive to the realities when the matters were decided at every stage administratively and recognize the impersonal and slow moving machinery of the Government and needs to accordingly address the issue of condonation of delay put forth by the State - Giving importance to the substantive justice, rather than to the technicality, the Court shall have to mould its approach accordingly on having found sufficient cause in absence of any deliberate inaction.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of statute under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003.
2. Condonation of delay in filing Tax Appeals.
3. Administrative reasons for delay.
4. Public interest and substantive justice versus technicality.
5. Judicial precedents on condonation of delay.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Statute under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003
The State challenged the Tribunal's decision which quashed the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax's order under Section 67 of the Act. The Tribunal's decision was contested on the grounds that it ignored vital aspects of law and important provisions of the Act and the Gujarat Sales Tax Rules.

2. Condonation of Delay in Filing Tax Appeals
The State filed Tax Appeals with a delay of 722 days, seeking condonation of the delay due to administrative and procedural reasons. The State argued that non-condonation would adversely affect tax collection and public exchequer. The respondent opposed the condonation, arguing that administrative delays do not constitute sufficient cause and that the State should not be given undue latitude.

3. Administrative Reasons for Delay
The State explained the delay by detailing the administrative process, including obtaining approvals and the heavy workload at the Government Pleader's office. The Court noted that the delay was due to the slow-moving governmental machinery and procedural red-tape.

4. Public Interest and Substantive Justice versus Technicality
The Court emphasized that substantive justice should prevail over technicalities. It recognized that governmental decisions involve procedural delays and that public interest would suffer if appeals by the State were dismissed solely on technical grounds.

5. Judicial Precedents on Condonation of Delay
The Court referred to several precedents, including:
- G. Ramegowda v. Special Land Acquisition Officer: Highlighted the need for a pragmatic approach in considering delays by the government.
- CIT v. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation Limited: Stressed that cases involving significant tax amounts should be decided on merits, even if there is a delay.
- State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO & Ors.: Emphasized that procedural delays in government decisions should be considered with a justice-oriented approach.

Conclusion:
The Court allowed the applications for condonation of delay, emphasizing the need to prioritize substantive justice over technical delays. It recognized the administrative reasons provided by the State and the significant public interest involved. Consequently, the delay of 722 days was condoned, and the State was ordered to pay costs of Rs. 20,000 in each case to the respondent.