2018 (5) TMI 1039 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Condonation of delay of 541 days in filing the tax appeals - satisfactory explanation as to delay was reasonable - it is contended that that delay is inordinate and has remained unexplained in two affidavits filed by the State authority - Held that - there is sufficient explanation covering the entire period of delay. It is ofcourse true that much of the period is sought to be explained on the ground that the papers were unavailable in GP office. Only when it was noticed that despite instructions, appeal was not filed, attempts were made to reconstruct the set and file the appeal after drafting and vetting. In absence of any averments to the contrary or any evidence of mala fide intentions at the level of GP office, delay should be condoned, ofcourse subject to payment of cost. In somewhat similar circumstances in a recent judgment in case of State of Gujarat v. GAIL India 2018 (5) TMI 1033 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT , the delay was condoned by holding that Considering the explanation rendered for the delay caused in filing appeal and the tax implications involved, we are inclined to condone the delay. The delay in filing the tax appeal is condoned, however, subject to condition that the applicant shall pay cost of ₹ 25,000/to the respondent latest by 30.4.2018 - application allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing tax appeals.
2. Explanation and sufficiency of delay.
3. Implications of delay on public interest and legal standards.
4. Precedents and judicial approach towards delay condonation for government entities.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Tax Appeals:
The primary issue revolves around the State's request for condonation of a 541-day delay in filing tax appeals. The State argued that the delay was due to administrative processes and inadvertence, highlighting the impersonal nature of government machinery. The court noted that the delay must be sufficiently explained, irrespective of whether the appellant is a state entity or a private individual.

2. Explanation and Sufficiency of Delay:
The State initially explained that the delay resulted from the time taken to communicate the Tribunal's order, obtain approval from the Finance Department, and transfer necessary documents to the Government Pleader's (GP) office. An additional affidavit clarified that due to inadvertence, the documents did not reach the concerned law officer, and the issue was discovered only in March 2017. The court found that the explanation covered the entire period of delay, although much of it was attributed to the unavailability of papers in the GP office. The court emphasized the absence of any mala fide intentions or contrary evidence.

3. Implications of Delay on Public Interest and Legal Standards:
The court acknowledged that government machinery is inherently slow and bureaucratic, which can lead to delays. It referenced several precedents where delays were condoned due to the impersonal and procedural nature of government operations. The court stressed that public interest should not suffer due to technicalities of delay, especially when significant tax implications are involved. The court cited previous judgments where delays were condoned to ensure substantial justice and prevent public mischief.

4. Precedents and Judicial Approach Towards Delay Condonation for Government Entities:
The court referred to multiple cases where delays by government entities were condoned, emphasizing the need for a pragmatic, justice-oriented approach. It highlighted the Supreme Court's stance that delays should be condoned in the interest of justice, particularly when public interest is at stake. The court noted that the law of limitation applies equally to government and private litigants but recognized the unique challenges faced by government entities.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the delay in filing the tax appeal was sufficiently explained and condoned it, subject to the payment of costs. The decision was influenced by the substantial tax implications and the need to ensure that public interest is not compromised due to procedural delays. The court ordered the State to pay ?25,000 to the respondent by 30.4.2018 and allowed the civil application accordingly.

← Previous Next →