2020 (1) TMI 575 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - contention of petitioners is that the copy of the order of assessing authority was served upon the petitioner on 11.01.2018 and the appeal has to be filed beyond the period of three months from the date of receiving of copy of the order on 14.06.2018 - power of appellate authority to condone delay - HELD THAT - The appeal was not filed by the petitioner within the stipulated period for the reason that the owner/proprietor of the firm was ill in between 07.04.2018 to 13.06.2018 - In support of ailment the petitioner has produced the copies of the medical certificate issued by the Senior Medical Practitioner namely Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma MS MCH (Neuro). The ailment which has been mentioned in the certificate prima facie appears to be the ailment which could take some time for recovery. The matter is remanded before the first appellate authority (respondent no.1) with a direction to consider and adjudicate upon the appeal filed by the petitioner on merits without raising any objection on the limitation after notice and opportunity of hearing to all concerned - Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal rejected on the ground of being filed beyond the limitation period.
2. Petitioner's contention regarding the delay in filing the appeal.
3. Medical certificate produced to support the claim of illness.
4. Reliance on a Division Bench judgment for condonation of delay.
5. Setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to the first appellate authority.

Analysis:

1. The High Court addressed the issue of the appeal being rejected due to being filed beyond the limitation period. The Additional Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal on the grounds of being filed late. The petitioner argued that the copy of the order was received on a certain date, and the appeal was filed within three months from that date. However, the appellate authority cited a provision under Section 107(4) of the U.P. VAT Act, stating that they could not condone the delay beyond 30 days.

2. The petitioner explained the delay in filing the appeal, mentioning that the owner/proprietor of the firm was ill during a specific period. The High Court noted that medical certificates were produced to support this claim. The certificates, issued by a Senior Medical Practitioner, indicated an ailment that required time for recovery, justifying the delay in filing the appeal.

3. In considering the medical evidence presented, the High Court referred to a Division Bench judgment in a similar case. The judgment highlighted that delays caused by circumstances beyond the petitioner's control may warrant leniency, even if the appellate authority is restricted by statutory limitations. The Court emphasized the importance of ensuring justice in such situations.

4. Based on the submissions made and the precedent cited, the High Court set aside the impugned order dated 04.12.2018. The matter was remanded to the first appellate authority with a directive to consider and adjudicate upon the appeal on its merits without raising objections regarding the limitation period. This decision was made in the interest of justice and to provide the petitioner with a fair opportunity to present their case.

5. Ultimately, the writ petition was disposed of in accordance with the decision to remand the matter for further consideration by the first appellate authority. The judgment reflected a balanced approach, taking into account the circumstances leading to the delay in filing the appeal and ensuring a fair hearing for the petitioner.