2014 (1) TMI 1205 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Imposition of tax liability - Bar of limitation - Whether Tribunal was justified in confirming order of Deputy Commissioner (Appeal) IInd, Trade Tax, Allahabad rejecting appeal on the ground of limitation and declining to condone delay - Held that - Normally, this court does not favour a lax litigant who sleeps over his rights but in the present case, from the facts stated it appears that there was some serious confusion with regard to date fixed before Assessing Authority, which resulted in non appearance of the assessee. Since the order passed by Assessing Authority was not immediately known to the assessee and therefore, some delay occurred which was aggravated due to illness of assessee - assessee should not be non suited only on the ground of limitation and particularly when appeals are against ex parte orders and instead ends of justice would be met if the delay is condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs.100/- to the revenue in each set of the revision - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Whether Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of Deputy Commissioner (Appeal) II, Trade Tax, Allahabad rejecting the appeal on the ground of limitation and declining to condone the delay?

Analysis:
The judgment addresses the common questions of law raised in multiple revisions and consolidates them into a single decision. The primary issue revolves around the Tribunal's decision to uphold the Deputy Commissioner's rejection of appeals based on the grounds of limitation and refusal to condone the delay in filing. The disputes pertain to the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96 concerning provincial and central tax. The ex-parte assessment orders were challenged by the assessee through applications under Section 30 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, seeking to set aside the said orders. However, the applications were dismissed, leading to the filing of appeals before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeal) II, Trade Tax, Allahabad.

The counsel for the assessee argued that the delay in filing the appeals was not intentional but arose due to a lack of information regarding the date fixed by the Assessing Authority, which resulted in non-appearance before the authority. Additionally, the illness of the assessee further contributed to the delay. The court acknowledged that while it typically does not condone delays caused by a negligent litigant, the circumstances in this case indicated genuine confusion and illness on the part of the assessee, justifying the condonation of the delay.

In light of the facts presented, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, emphasizing that justice would be served by condoning the delay in filing the appeals, subject to the payment of costs to the revenue. The orders of the Tribunal and the first appellate authority were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the first appellate authority for a prompt decision on the merits within a specified timeline. The judgment highlights the importance of balancing procedural requirements with considerations of fairness and individual circumstances in legal proceedings.