2017 (8) TMI 392 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Condonation of delay of 730 days in filing appeal - Held that - the Court is not satisfied that any reasonable explanation has been offered by the Appellant for the inordinate delay of 730 days in filing this appeal - the Appellant did not have a prima facie case in its favour and, in those circumstances, the AT was requiring it to deposit 20% of the demanded tax and interest and 10% of the penalty - appeal dismissed on the groundsof delay as well as on merits - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Extraordinary delay of 730 days in filing the appeal against the order of the Appellate Tribunal.
2. Review application pending before the Appellate Tribunal for over two years.
3. Challenge of the order dismissing the review petition.
4. Examination of the appeal on merits regarding the pre-deposit requirement.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the extraordinary delay of 730 days in filing the appeal against the order of the Appellate Tribunal under Section 76(4) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004. The appellant cited the pending review application as the reason for the delay, which was dismissed by the Tribunal on 20th March, 2017. However, the Court noted that the order dismissing the review petition was not challenged before it, and the mere filing of a review petition does not extend the time for filing an appeal. The Court expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of a reasonable explanation for the delay.

2. The judgment further delves into the details of the review application that was pending before the Appellate Tribunal for over two years. The Tribunal's order dated 20th March, 2017, highlighted that the review petition was without merits and not maintainable under Regulation 24 of the DVAT Regulation. The appellant failed to demonstrate any mistake or error on record to warrant a review. Despite the dismissal of the review petition, the appeal was filed only on 5th July 2017, raising concerns about the delay and procedural adherence.

3. The Court scrutinized the challenge against the order dismissing the review petition, emphasizing that the review petition lacked sufficient grounds for a recall or review of the initial order dated 11th February, 2015. The judgment emphasized that the mere filing of a review petition does not automatically justify an extension of time for filing an appeal against the original order, reinforcing the procedural requirements and timelines under the DVAT Act and Regulations.

4. Lastly, the judgment examined the appeal on merits concerning the pre-deposit requirement imposed by the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal had mandated a pre-deposit of 20% of the tax and interest amount and 10% of the penalty, noting the absence of a prima facie case in favor of the appellant. The Court concurred with the Tribunal's decision, finding no legal infirmity in the order that warranted interference in appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed both on grounds of delay and on merits, with the related applications also being dismissed.

In conclusion, the judgment meticulously analyzes the issues of delay in filing the appeal, the review application before the Tribunal, the challenge against the review petition's dismissal, and the examination of the appeal on merits. It underscores the importance of procedural compliance, timely filings, and substantive legal grounds in the appellate process under the DVAT Act and Regulations.