2016 (7) TMI 370 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Condonation of delay in filing appeal before the tribunal - lapse of 8 years - bonafide circumstances - Held that - There appears to be no malafide intention behind it since the rectification application was very much pending and therefore, the reason which has been raised for seeking condonation of delay appears to be bonafide. In addition thereto, the learned Tribunal appears to be on the wrong premise that there is no reference about the application for rectification. Before us also, an affidavit has been filed by Shri Prashant Pujara, Deputy Commissioner dated 25.06.2014 in which the fact of filing of application for rectification in the year 2004 has been admitted. While considering this appeal, it has come to the notice of this Court that the main amount which has been assessed i.e. ₹ 1,21,38,534/- is long back deposited by Challan dated 03.10.1994 and therefore, if the appeal is ordered to be heard on merits, no serious prejudice is likely to be caused to the department and it is settled position of law that when a substantial justice is pitted against technical consideration, the substantial justice must be given predominance and therefore, since the bonafides are appearing to be genuine, there is no likelihood of any prejudice to the department and the main reason assigned by the Tribunal is clarified by the department itself. - Matter restored before the tribunal.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against assessment order dated 08.10.2013 by Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal.
2. Appellant's plea for condonation of delay in filing appeal.
3. Rectification application for the assessment order dated 30.06.2004.
4. Bonafide circumstances for delay in appeal.
5. Department's confirmation of rectification application.
6. Decision to quash the order dated 08.10.2013 and allow the appeal.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a cooperative society engaged in manufacturing Urea, appealed against the assessment order dated 08.10.2013 by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal. The appellant contended that they were registered under various tax acts and had availed input tax credit. The assessment for the year 1989-90 resulted in a demand, which was later rectified by the Sales Tax Officer. Subsequently, the appellant filed an application for additional grounds in the main appeal, claiming the original assessment order was time-barred. Despite various submissions, the Assistant Commissioner upheld the assessment order, leading to further rectification applications and appeals.

2. The appellant sought condonation of the delay in filing the appeal, citing the pending rectification application as a reason for the delay. The Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal initially rejected the application based on the absence of evidence regarding the rectification application. However, upon later confirmation by the department that the rectification application was indeed filed, the reason for rejecting the delay condonation was no longer valid. The delay was deemed to be under bonafide circumstances, and the appellant was granted the opportunity to prosecute the appeal on its merits.

3. The rectification application filed by the appellant in 2004 played a crucial role in the appeal process. Despite initial rejection by the Tribunal, the subsequent acknowledgment by the department of the rectification application's existence led to the quashing of the order dated 08.10.2013. The rectification application's significance in establishing the bonafide nature of the delay in filing the appeal was pivotal in the final decision to allow the appeal to proceed.

4. The Court acknowledged the long-standing deposit made by the appellant in response to the initial assessment order, emphasizing that allowing the appeal to be heard on its merits would not prejudice the department. The principle of substantial justice prevailing over technical considerations guided the decision to quash the order dated 08.10.2013 and grant the appellant a fair chance to present their case. The appeal was ultimately allowed, and the Tribunal was instructed to hear and decide the appeal on its merits promptly.