2020 (6) TMI 550 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of Review Petition - time limitation - no sufficient ground has been given in the Application for condonation of delay - HELD THAT - There is limitation prescribed for six months for filing the review application. Even thereafter, for more than 500 days, the review application was not filed. The issuance of notice in the remand proceedings by the Assessing Authority itself cannot be a ground for condoning the delay. The issue that the assessment was not finalised within the reasonable time is not a pure question of law but would depend upon the factual aspect of each case. In the present case, apart from six months prescribed limitation, there is delay of 505 days, the explanation put forth is not worth acceptance. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of review application as time-barred by the Tribunal.
2. Whether the assessment framed in the present case is barred by limitation.

Issue 1: Dismissal of Review Application as Time-Barred:

The appellant filed an appeal under Section 36 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act against the order of the Haryana Tax Tribunal, which dismissed the review application as time-barred. The appellant argued that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the review application, emphasizing that the issue of limitation was not pressed during the appeal's disposal. The appellant admitted negligence in not raising the limitation issue earlier. The review application was filed under Section 35 of the 2003 Act, with a 180-day limitation for filing. The Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay of 505 days, noting that the delay was due to negligence on the appellant's part. The Supreme Court's stance on condonation of delay highlighted that negligence cannot be considered a sufficient cause. The appellant's explanation for the delay was found lacking in bona fides, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Issue 2: Assessment Barred by Limitation:

The appellant contended that the assessment framed in the case was barred by limitation, raising a question of law on the assessment completion timeframe. The appellant failed to challenge the order disposing of appeals for the assessment year 2003-04, where similar issues were involved. The Tribunal's dismissal of the review application on the grounds of limitation alone indicated that the issue of assessment limitation was not addressed. The Tribunal clarified that the review application's dismissal did not involve a decision on the assessment's merits. The appellant's delay in raising the limitation issue, coupled with the lack of a convincing explanation for the delay, led to the rejection of the appeal. The Tribunal's decision focused solely on the procedural aspect of the review application's timeliness, not delving into the assessment's limitation issue.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal, addressing both issues raised by the appellant. The dismissal was based on the failure to provide a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the review application and the lack of merit in challenging the assessment's limitation. The judgment highlighted the importance of timely legal actions and the repercussions of negligence in pursuing legal remedies.