9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (8) TMI 495X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions of the Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1968, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and is engaged in the business of manufacturing steel ingots and having its factory at Parwanoo in Himachal Pradesh. On April 19, 2000, petitioner had sent certain consignments from its factory at Parwanoo to M/s. Sandeep Steels, G.T. Road, Samalkha (Haryana) against different bills. Goods were sent through two vehicles. Petitioner also obtained forms ST-26A from multi purpose barrier existing on the outskirts of Parwanoo. Obtaining of such a form was mandatory under the provisions of Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. On April 19, 2000, while entering Haryana, vehicles carrying goods of the petitioner were intercepted and detained by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ified copy of the orders was not supplied to the petitioner when order was passed or even subsequent thereto. Petitioner's applications annexures P2 and P3 for supply of certified copies were still pending when appeals were filed before the court below. Both the applications were moved on May 6, 2000, i.e., within the period of limitation. However, without noticing any of the contentions raised by the petitioner, Sales Tax Tribunal also, dismissed both the appeals vide order dated February 13, 2002 (annexure P9). Hence this writ petition. 5.. It has been contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had been disputing his liability to pay the penalty. Goods were being transported under valid documents, which were shown ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellate authority and the Tribunal. However, in reply to averments of the petitioner that it had moved two applications dated May 6, 2000 (annexures P2 and P3) for supply of certified copy of the order dated April 19, 2000, following plea was taken in para 6 of the written statement: "6. In reply to para 6 of the writ petition, it is submitted that respondent No. 3 supplied copy of order on April 19, 2002 to Sh. Suresh Kumar as stated above, hence no further action was required on the application annexures P2 and P3. Averments made in preceding para are reiterated." 7.. Counsel for the parties heard. 8.. It is apparent from the records that two vehicles carrying goods of the petitioner were intercepted and detained by the autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons annexures P2 and P3 were moved by the petitioner on May 6, 2000, i.e., within the period of limitation of sixty days and those were still pending as no action was taken by the department. Under these circumstances, dismissal of appeals, being barred by limitation, was not justified. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of the honourable Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Madan Lal Das Sons, Bareilly [1976] 38 STC 543, to support his contentions as referred to above. In that judgment, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in a similar situation under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, were dealing with a following question: "Whether the time taken by the dealer in obtaining another copy of the impugned appellate ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be in a position to file revision petition, the time spent in obtaining that copy would necessarily have to be excluded under section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963." 12.. The case in hand is squarely covered by the ratio of judgment of the honourable Supreme Court in Madan Lal's case [1976] 38 STC 543. As such, it can safely be concluded that both, Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) and Sales Tax Tribunal were not justified in dismissing the appeals filed by the petitioner vide orders annexures P6 and P9 respectively. In this case, limitation could have been condoned on the basis of grounds taken by the petitioner. This Court is satisfied that the petitioner had furnished sufficient cause and the reasons, on the basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time. 12.. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words 'sufficient cause' under section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
