2014 (9) TMI 375 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Condonation of delay - Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 - Section 42(1), 48 - court fee stamps - escalation charges - Whether in the context of providing condonation of delay, the existence of sufficient cause depends upon facts of each case - Held that - Law of limitation has been enacted which is based on public policy so as to prescribe time limit for availing legal remedy for redressal of the injury caused. The purpose behind enacting law of limitation is not to destroy the rights of the parties but to see that the uncertainty should not prevail for unlimited period. Under Section 5 of the 1963 Act, the courts are empowered to condone the delay where a party approaching the court belatedly shows sufficient cause for not availing the remedy within the prescribed period. The meaning to be assigned to the expression sufficient cause occurring in Section 5 of the 1963 Act should be such so as to do substantial justice between the parties. The existence of sufficient cause depends upon facts of each case and no hard and fast rule can be applied in deciding such cases. Whether there is sufficient cause or not depends upon each case and primarily is a question of fact to be considered taking into totality of events which had taken place in a particular case. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in July, 2012, the applicant-petitioner requested the counsel to verify the status of the case from where they came to know that the said reference has been returned unanswered on 25.2.2010. Thereafter, immediate steps were taken to file the application but the same was rejected. Thereafter, application for recalling the order dated 25.2.2010 was filed. The said application was also dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 15.2.2013. After that, the review application was filed which was barred by 1127 days. Learned counsel further argued that the delay was unintentional and due to the circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner. The reference was returned unanswered by this Court vide order dated 25.2.2010. Thereafter, the application for recalling the said order dated 25.2.2010 was filed which was also dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 15.2.2013. However, the review application was filed before this Court on 26.4.2013, after a delay of 1127 days. The applicant-petitioner has not furnished any particulars of events that have taken place whereby inordinate delay in filing of review petition has occurred. The applicant-petitioner has vaguely tried to substantiate the plea that there existed sufficient cause for condoning colossal delay of 1127 days in filing the review petition without furnishing sequence of events in detail - Delay not condoned.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application under Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure for affixing remaining court fee stamps.
2. Review application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3. Condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis:
1. The judgment involves an application under Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure for affixing remaining court fee stamps. The court allowed the application, permitting the applicant to rectify the deficiency in court fee stamps. This issue was addressed in two separate applications, and both were allowed by the court, allowing the applicants to make good the deficiency in court fees.

2. The judgment also pertains to a review application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner sought a review of an earlier order that declined to answer a reference and returned it unanswered. The case involved supplies made to Indian Railways, escalation charges, and penalties imposed under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973. The Tribunal referred a question of law to the High Court, which was declined to be answered earlier. The petitioner sought to recall the reference, but the application was dismissed as withdrawn. Subsequently, a review application was filed, which was found to be time-barred. The court examined the legal principles related to condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, emphasizing the need to establish sufficient cause for delay. The court cited relevant Supreme Court judgments regarding the application of the "sufficient cause" test and the discretion of the court in condoning delays. Ultimately, the court found no merit in the application for condonation of delay and dismissed the review petition as time-barred.

3. The final issue in the judgment was the condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The court emphasized the importance of establishing sufficient cause for delay and cited Supreme Court precedents to highlight the discretionary nature of such decisions. The court noted that the law of limitation aims to balance the rights of parties with the need for timely legal remedies. The court observed that each case must be considered on its facts, and no exhaustive list of sufficient causes exists. Despite the petitioner's arguments regarding unintentional delay and circumstances beyond their control, the court found no merit in the application for condonation of delay, ultimately dismissing the review petition as time-barred.