2022 (3) TMI 1097 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Condonation of delay of 1217 days in filing appeal - Re-assessment order - input tax credit - time limitation - tax periods April 2005 to March 2008 and April 2008 to March 2009 - HELD THAT - The period prescribed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 though may not be applicable to the tax matters, since the same is prescribed under the statute but the parameters set down for condonation of delay cannot stand on different footing. It is significant to observe that the controversy may not be relating to the collection of tax but the claim of input tax credit would certainly has some effect on the revenue. It cannot be construed as No revenue loss as canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant. Compared to the Government, Private litigant stands on a better pedestal in taking a decision and filing the appeal before the Court. Merely for the reason that in the appeal filed by the Government delay is condoned, the same yardstick cannot be applied blindly but requires to be examined having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. No doubt, delay of 1754 days has been condoned - It is the discretionary power vested with the Court, to be exercised judiciously having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. The inordinate delay of 1217 days in the background of the facts cannot be condoned with the liberal approach accepting the cause - no ground is found to condone the inordinate delay of 1217 days in filing the appeal - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Delay of 1217 days in filing an appeal under Section 66(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 challenging re-assessment orders.
2. Condonation of the delay in filing the appeal.
3. Legal principles governing the condonation of delay in tax matters.

Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: The appeal was filed challenging re-assessment orders for tax periods April 2005 to March 2008 and April 2008 to March 2009. The delay in filing the appeal was 1217 days, and an application seeking condonation of the delay was submitted.

Issue 2: The appellant argued that the delay was due to a bonafide belief that they could satisfy the prescribed authority regarding input tax credit. They had filed rectification applications which were rejected, leading to a writ petition challenging the assessment orders. The delay was attributed to legal advice received during this process.

Issue 3: The Senior Counsel for the appellant relied on legal precedents to support the condonation of the delay. However, the Additional Government Advocate contended that the delay was self-contradictory and that challenging the order at a belated stage was not permissible. The court considered various judgments, including the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag, to analyze the delay issue.

The court examined the arguments presented and found that the appellant had participated in proceedings post the remand order without contesting it. Despite legal advice received during the writ petition, the delay of 1217 days was deemed inordinate. The court emphasized the need for a judicious exercise of discretion in condoning delays, considering the impact on both parties and the principles of justice.

The court distinguished between inordinate delay and short duration delay, highlighting the importance of genuine reasons for delay. It referenced the judgment in Esha Bhattacharjee vs Mg.Commit. of Raghunathpur Nafar to emphasize the need for a careful approach in condoning delays. Ultimately, the court found no grounds to condone the 1217-day delay and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of consistency in the adjudicatory system.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the condonation application and subsequently the Sales Tax Appeal due to the inordinate delay in filing the appeal challenging the re-assessment orders.