2019 (11) TMI 1631 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court Upholds Dismissal of Appeals Due to Filing Delays

EXCISE AND TAXATION COMMISSIONER, HARYANA Versus SUDHIR ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD. AND ANOTHER

The court upheld the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeals due to substantial delays in filing beyond the 180-day limitation period under section ... Condonation of delay in filing appeal - Whether the judgments passed by the honourable apex court as well as by this court on the issue of delay condonation are not binding on the Haryana Tax Tribunal? - HELD THAT:- In the present case, no ground for condonation of colossal delay of 560 days has been made out. The question regarding whether there is sufficient cause or not depends upon each case and primarily is a question of fact to be considered taking into totality of events which had taken place in a particular case. In the present case after appreciating the matter it cannot be said that there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The assessing authority had decided the matter and the order was communicated on September 17, 2007. The reason advanced for condonation of delay is that the matter relating to filing of appeal was under active consideration of the State Government and the office of Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana ; the file kept shuttling between the offices of Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana and Principal Secretary to the State Government because of the serious nature of the case and financial implications thereof. Tribunal had also referred to section 33(6) of the HVAT Act which provide long limitation period of 180 days for the State to file an appeal. The Tribunal has also rightly observed that if the matter was of such a serious nature having huge financial implications for the State as alleged by it then the case should have been given the urgency and importance it deserved and the decision to file appeal should have been taken expeditiously even prior to the expiry of limitation period of 180 days which is otherwise also sufficiently a long period. There are no ground to interfere in order passed by the Tribunal - appeal dismissed. Issues:- Condonation of delay in filing appeals before the Haryana Tax Tribunal beyond the limitation period of 180 days as prescribed under section 33(6) of the HVAT Act.Analysis:Issue 1: Condonation of DelayThe judgment involves two appeals with similar facts related to the condonation of delay in filing appeals before the Haryana Tax Tribunal beyond the 180-day limitation period as per section 33(6) of the HVAT Act. The key question raised in the appeals was whether there was sufficient cause for condonation of the substantial delay in filing the appeals, which were belated by 560 days. The court examined the grounds presented for condonation, emphasizing that the determination of sufficient cause is a factual inquiry based on the totality of events in each case.The court noted that in the present case, the State Government took two years to file the appeal, attributing the delay to the matter being under active consideration between different offices. However, the court found this explanation vague and general, stating that such delays cannot be justified merely by administrative processes. The Tribunal rightly pointed out that if the case had significant financial implications as claimed by the State, it should have been handled with urgency and the decision to file the appeal should have been expedited well within the 180-day limitation period.Referring to previous judgments, the court highlighted the principles for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, emphasizing that the existence of sufficient cause depends on the specific circumstances of each case. The court stressed that while the law aims to ensure justice between parties, delays must be justified by circumstances beyond the party's control. The court also noted that the present appeal itself was filed with a delay of 436 days, citing procedural formalities as the reason, which further weakened the appellant's case for condonation.In conclusion, the court found no merit in the appeals and upheld the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeals due to the substantial delay in filing. The court emphasized the importance of timely legal actions, especially in cases with significant implications, and highlighted the need for parties to demonstrate genuine and compelling reasons for seeking condonation of delay in legal proceedings.This comprehensive analysis outlines the key issues, legal principles, and the court's reasoning in the judgment related to the condonation of delay in filing appeals before the Haryana Tax Tribunal, providing a detailed understanding of the case and its implications.