2016 (10) TMI 1000 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

State appeals dismissed due to excessive delay in filing, assessment orders time-barred. Remand deemed futile.

The court dismissed the State's appeals filed before the tribunal, upholding the orders of the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner. The court found ... Limitation prescribed by Section 11(4) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 - time-barred assessments - condonation of delay in institution of appealsLimitation prescribed by Section 11(4) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 - time-barred assessments - All assessment orders for the stated assessment years were barred by limitation and could not be sustained. - HELD THAT: - The Division Bench decision in Patiala Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited established that, following the amendment effective 3.3.1998, assessments for assessment years up to 1997-98 could not validly be passed after 30.4.2001. In the present matters the assessing authority passed assessment orders in April 2002 for the years 1983-84 to 1996-97. On that legal footing the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) correctly set aside the assessment orders as beyond the period of limitation. Given this settled position of law, the Court concluded that it would be futile to remit the matters to the Tribunal for fresh consideration; even if the Tribunal's allowance of applications for condonation of delay were sustained, on merits the assessments are invalid for being time-barred. The Court therefore disposed of the appeals on merits by upholding the appellate orders which had set aside the assessments. [Paras 9, 11, 12]The assessment orders are time-barred and are set aside; the appellate orders of the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) are upheld.Final Conclusion: The appeals are dismissed; the orders of the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the assessment orders are upheld because the assessments were passed beyond the period of limitation and therefore cannot be sustained. Issues Involved:1. Whether the order of the tribunal annexure 'A-6' is a Non-Speaking order.2. Whether the Department has explained the delay by a 'sufficient cause' and shown due diligence in pursuing the remedy.3. Whether the decision of the Tribunal in K. Ajesh and Company could form a 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay.4. Whether the prejudice caused to the dealer by condonation of such a long delay was considered.5. Whether the tribunal should have considered the dealer's objection against condoning the delay.6. Whether a delay of 1485 days is considered a long delay.7. Whether the department had been diligent in pursuing the remedy and whether the delay should be condoned.8. Whether the tribunal is justified in granting a special status to the State for condoning such a long delay.Detailed Analysis:1. Non-Speaking Order:The appellants contended that the tribunal's order annexure 'A-6' was a non-speaking order. The court did not explicitly address this issue in detail, focusing instead on the broader context of the appeals and the merits of the case.2. Explanation of Delay and Due Diligence:The appellants argued that the Department had not shown 'sufficient cause' for the delay of 1485 days in filing the appeals. They highlighted that the delay was due to the Department's lack of diligence. The court noted the State's reliance on precedents like State of Nagaland vs. Lipok Ao and others, emphasizing that 'sufficient cause' should be liberally construed for State machinery. However, the court concluded that the delay was excessive and not adequately justified by the Department.3. Decision in K. Ajesh and Company:The appellants questioned whether the decision in K. Ajesh and Company, which was under challenge, could form a 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay. The court did not delve deeply into this issue, instead focusing on the broader question of whether the delay was justified and whether the assessment orders were time-barred.4. Prejudice to the Dealer:The appellants argued that the tribunal failed to consider the prejudice caused to the dealer by condoning such a long delay. The court acknowledged this concern but ultimately focused on the merits of the case, determining that the assessment orders were time-barred and thus invalid.5. Consideration of Dealer's Objection:The appellants contended that the tribunal should have considered their objection against condoning the delay. The court did not explicitly address this procedural issue, instead resolving the case based on the substantive merits.6. Length of Delay:The court recognized that a delay of 1485 days is indeed a long delay. The appellants argued that such a delay could not be condoned without a compelling justification, which the Department failed to provide.7. Department's Diligence:The appellants highlighted the Department's lack of diligence, noting that the sanction for revision was given in December 2006, but the appeals were filed only on 26.11.2007. The court agreed that the Department had not been diligent in pursuing the remedy, further supporting the decision to reject the condonation of delay.8. Special Status to State:The appellants argued that the tribunal unjustifiably granted a special status to the State for condoning the delay. The court concluded that even if the appeals were considered on merits, the assessment orders were time-barred and could not be sustained, thus negating the need to address the issue of special status.Conclusion:The court concluded that remitting the matters back to the tribunal would be futile, as the assessment orders were clearly barred by limitation as per the judgment in Patiala Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited's case. The court upheld the orders of the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeals filed by the State before the tribunal on merits, without delving into the issue of delay. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.