1990 (4) TMI 276 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Tribunal denies amendment application and original writ due to delay and new claims, upholding discretionary powers.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for amendment and the original writ application due to the delay in filing, the new nature of the prayers, and the ... - Issues:1. Application for amendment of original writ application.2. Whether the amendment application is maintainable.3. Refusal of Steel Authorities to accept declaration forms.4. Delay in filing the writ application.5. Discretionary nature of powers under article 226 of the Constitution.Analysis:1. Application for Amendment of Original Writ Application:The applicants filed an application seeking to amend the original writ application due to the assessment for the impugned period already being completed. The amendment included making new prayers, alleging the Steel Authorities should be considered a State under article 12 of the Constitution. The respondents opposed the amendment application, arguing it introduced new prayers and was time-barred under the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987.2. Maintainability of Amendment Application:The Tribunal found the amendment application to be essentially a new application with new prayers, thus barred by the limitation period prescribed in the Act. The absence of a prayer for an extension of time further weakened the applicant's case. The Tribunal noted that no extraordinary circumstances were presented to warrant allowing the application, leading to its rejection.3. Refusal of Steel Authorities to Accept Declaration Forms:The dispute centered on the Steel Authorities' alleged arbitrary refusal to accept three declaration forms submitted by the applicants. The Steel Authorities contended that the forms were provided belatedly, after a significant delay, and that no opportunity of being heard was given before returning the forms. The Tribunal highlighted that the delay in filing the writ application remained unexplained, emphasizing the discretionary nature of equitable relief under article 226 of the Constitution.4. Delay in Filing the Writ Application:The Tribunal noted that the writ application was filed nearly eighteen months after the cause of action arose, with no satisfactory explanation for the delay provided by the applicant. Emphasizing that equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent, the Tribunal considered the delay a significant factor in rejecting the application.5. Discretionary Nature of Powers under Article 226:The Tribunal underscored that powers under article 226 of the Constitution are discretionary and not meant for those who delay in seeking relief. Citing the principle that equity aids the vigilant, the Tribunal concluded that the application failed on the grounds of delay and the prayers in the original application becoming infructuous due to the completed assessment.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the application for amendment and the original writ application, highlighting the delay in filing, the new nature of the prayers, and the completed assessment as key factors contributing to the rejection of the applicant's claims.