High Court grants relief, quashes orders dismissing reference application & review petition on limitation grounds

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking to quash orders dismissing a reference application and review petition on grounds of limitation. The petitioner, a company facing tax liability post-exemption, diligently pursued remedies within the statutory limitation period. The court applied Section 14 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the reference application, criticizing the Tribunal's hyper-technical approach. Emphasizing fairness, the court granted relief by quashing the impugned orders and allowing the writ petition.

---

---

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction under Article 226 for writ of certiorari
2. Limitation period for filing reference application under Haryana General Sales Tax Act
3. Application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay
4. Review application before the Tribunal
5. Condonation of delay for filing reference application

The High Court considered a petition filed under Article 226 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash orders dismissing a reference application and review application on grounds of limitation. The petitioner, a company granted exemption by the Sales Tax Department, faced tax liability due to alleged failure to maintain production levels post-exemption. The petitioner's appeal journey through the first appellate authority and Tribunal culminated in a review petition dismissed in 2006. A subsequent writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to seek reference, leading to a reference application dismissed by the Haryana Tax Tribunal. The main contention revolved around the limitation period for filing the reference application under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, which was 60 days from the Tribunal's order.

The respondents argued that the petitioner, having received the Tribunal's order in 2004, missed the 60-day limitation for filing a reference application. However, the court examined Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which allows excluding time spent in a bona fide proceeding in a wrong forum for calculating limitation. The court emphasized that diligence in pursuing a remedy in a court lacking jurisdiction should be considered for condonation of delay. The petitioner had diligently pursued a review application within the prescribed time, followed by a prompt reference application after withdrawing the writ petition.

The court held that the delay in filing the reference application should be condoned, applying the principles of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. It criticized the Tribunal's hyper-technical approach, emphasizing that denying the remedy due to a technicality would be unjust. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned orders dismissing the reference application and review petition, allowing the writ petition and condoning the delay in filing the reference application.

In conclusion, the court's decision focused on upholding the principles of due diligence and fairness in considering applications within the statutory limitation period, ultimately granting relief to the petitioner by condoning the delay and allowing the writ petition.

---