2015 (12) TMI 310 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Appeal Dismissed Due to Delay in Filing - Importance of Adhering to Limitation Periods

The Commissioner, VAT Versus Pure Drinks (New Delhi) Ltd.

The appeal against the quashing of the suo moto revision notice, penalty notice, and revision order was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal and upheld by ... Condonation of delay - Delay of 823 days - Held that:- Even if it were to be assumed that the appellant was not aware of the passing of the impugned order and it became aware of the order from the application of the respondent seeking refund, there is still no sufficient explanation for delay. It is mentioned in the application that on 29.07.2013, the case was put up for further course of action. The application does not mention as to when the department allegedly became aware of the judgment from the application of the respondent claiming refund. The condonation application is silent about the date when the refund claim was made by the respondent. - Thereafter between 05.11.2013 to 02.12.2013, second legal opinion was obtained from another counsel. On 05.12.2013, approval of Commissioner (VAT) was obtained for filing the petition in the High Court. On 24.12.2013, documents were delivered to the Advocate for preparation and filing of the appeal. On 23.05.2014, the counsel who was entrusted with the filing of the appeal, returned the file and the same was entrusted to another counsel. On 28.08.2014, the file was sent to the Lt. Governor for approval of appointment of the Special Counsel. On 03.01.2015, the Special Counsel was requested to prepare and file the appeal in the High Court. - department proceeded in a very casual manner in the filing of the present appeal. The explanation tendered by the department, in our view, does not show any sufficient cause. The department does not appear to have acted in a bonafide and reasonable manner. - Condonation denied. Issues:1. Appeal against quashing of suo moto revision notice, penalty notice, and revision order.2. Delay of 823 days in filing the present appeal.Analysis:1. The appellant-Revenue challenged the order quashing the suo moto revision notice, penalty notice, and revision order. The Commissioner Sales Tax directed reassessment and penalty proceedings for the period 1979-80 to 1992-93. Reassessment proceedings initiated in 1997 became time-barred by 1998, leading to a revision notice proposing to revise the assessment order. The Appellate Tribunal quashed the revision notice and order, which was upheld in 2012 based on a coordinate bench decision. The appellant filed the present appeal after a delay of 823 days, citing reasons including unawareness of the judgment until a refund claim by the respondent.2. The appellant's explanation for the delay was deemed insufficient by the court. Despite being present during the impugned order, the appellant claimed unawareness until the respondent's refund application. The court found the delay unjustified, noting the lack of action for extended periods. Various steps were taken between 2013 and 2015, including seeking legal opinions and approvals, yet significant delays remained unexplained. The court criticized the department's casual approach and lack of a bona fide and reasonable explanation for the delay.3. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to limitation periods, even for departmental appeals. While some delays are expected due to administrative processes, a lackadaisical attitude towards limitations was not permissible. The court highlighted the department's failure to demonstrate sufficient cause for the substantial delay in filing the appeal. Despite condoning a previous delay, the court dismissed the current application, holding that the department's actions did not warrant condonation of the 823-day delay. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, with each party bearing their own costs.