Time-barred sales tax exemption claim cannot be entertained without condonation request or sufficient cause

An application for sales tax exemption under the incentive scheme had to be filed within 180 days of commencement of commercial production, and delayed filing could be entertained only on sufficient grounds with a request for condonation. Because the assessee filed beyond limitation and never sought condonation or showed sufficient cause, the authorities were not required to probe further or give an opportunity to create a condonation ground. The limitation finding was concurrent, factual, and unsupported by any shown perversity, so revision was not available on merits. The Court also treated natural justice as inapplicable where the claim was hopelessly time-barred and no condonation was sought.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee's application for sales tax exemption, filed beyond the prescribed period without any application for condonation of delay, could be entertained and whether denial of hearing offended natural justice in revision under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales and Purchase Tax Act, 1994.

Analysis: The application under Para 5(b) of the Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, 1989 was required to be filed within 180 days from the commencement of commercial production, with a limited discretion to entertain a delayed application only on sufficient grounds. On the assessee's own showing, the application was filed after expiry of limitation and no application seeking condonation of delay or showing sufficient grounds was ever submitted. In such a situation, the authority was under no obligation to enquire further or afford an opportunity to manufacture a ground for condonation. The question whether the application was within time was a question of fact, concurrently found against the assessee by the authorities below, and no perversity or lack of evidence was shown to justify interference in revision. The Court also held that where the claim was hopelessly time-barred and no condonation was sought, principles of natural justice were not attracted.

Conclusion: The time-bar objection was upheld and the revision was not maintainable on merits in favour of the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: A time-barred application under a statutory scheme cannot be entertained in the absence of a request for condonation of delay and sufficient cause, and such rejection does not attract a further duty to hear the applicant where the facts are undisputed.

---