9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 1040 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxCondonation of delay - Inordinate delay of 1583 days - Held that - Following decision of State of Gujarat v. Karnavati Veneers Pvt. Ltd. 2014 (7) TMI 362 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - Condonation denied.
Issues:
Delay of 1583 days in preferring Tax Appeal against impugned judgment and order passed by Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal. Analysis: The judgment delivered by the Gujarat High Court pertained to an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the Commissioner of Commercial Tax to condone a significant delay of 1583 days in filing a Tax Appeal against a judgment and order issued by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal. The Tribunal's decision was based on its earlier rulings in Second Appeal Nos. 501 to 505 of 2008, which were subsequently challenged before the High Court. Another application had been made earlier to condone a delay of 1360 days in filing a tax appeal against the Tribunal's decision in Second Appeal No. 501 of 2008. The High Court, in a detailed order, referred to the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd., and noted that a similar application had been dismissed by the Division Bench previously. The court, after hearing the arguments presented by the State's representative and considering the grounds for condonation of delay, decided not to deviate from the earlier ruling. The High Court, based on the previous decision by the Division Bench in a similar matter, dismissed the present application for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the Tax Appeal as well on the grounds of limitation. The court highlighted that the question of law remained open for future consideration, emphasizing that both the application and the appeal were dismissed solely due to the delay in filing. The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and the consequences of failing to do so in legal proceedings. The decision served as a reminder of the significance of timely actions in legal matters to avoid adverse outcomes like dismissal based on procedural delays.
|
