2019 (5) TMI 646 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Tribunal Upheld Dismissal Appeal for Failure to Justify Delay in Filing

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal due to the appellant's failure to explain the delay in filing the first appeal under ... Condonation of delay - limitation for filing first appeal - rectification of order - clerical or arithmetical mistake apparent from the record - time-limit for rectification - input tax creditCondonation of delay - limitation for filing first appeal - Whether the delay in filing the first appeal under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 could be condoned in view of pending rectification applications and whether the appeal was barred by limitation. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that the appellant filed the first appeal under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 within time but failed to file the corresponding first appeal under the Haryana VAT Act. The rectification applications were filed after the period for filing the first appeal had already expired and were held to be an afterthought intended to cover up the delay. No sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the appeal under the Act was furnished. In these circumstances the Tribunal's rejection of the application for condonation of 931 days' delay and dismissal of the appeal as barred by limitation was upheld. [Paras 4, 5]The Tribunal rightly refused condonation and dismissed the appeal as time-barred; no sufficient explanation for delay was shown.Rectification of order - clerical or arithmetical mistake apparent from the record - time-limit for rectification - input tax credit - Whether the rectification provisions could be invoked to grant additional input tax credit after expiry of the rectification period and whether such rectification could justify extension of limitation for appeal. - HELD THAT: - The Court observed that rectification under Section 19 of the Act is confined to correcting clerical or arithmetical mistakes apparent on the record and that the Assessing Authority may pass a rectification order only within two years from supply of copy of the order. The assessment order copy was supplied on 11.4.2011, so rectification could be validly made only up to 11.4.2013. The appellant's rectification applications, filed largely after that period, could not be used to resurrect the time for filing the first appeal or to justify belated claims for higher input tax credit; they were treated as attempts to cover up the delay. [Paras 4]Rectification could not be used to extend limitation or permit belated ITC claims beyond the statutory rectification period; the Tribunal's view was affirmed.Final Conclusion: Appeal dismissed; the Tribunal's rejection of condonation and its decision to dismiss the appeal as barred by limitation are upheld, and no interference is warranted with the findings on rectification and belated ITC claims. Issues:- Delay in filing appeal before the first appellate authority- Fatal delay leading to dismissal of appeal- Denial of input tax benefit due to non-production of formsAnalysis:1. Delay in filing appeal before the first appellate authority:The appellant filed an appeal under the 1956 Act within the limitation period but failed to file the first appeal under the Act against the same assessment order. The appellant's rectification applications were seen as an attempt to cover up the delay in filing the first appeal. The rectification sought a higher amount of Input Tax Credit (ITC) than allowed by the Assessing Authority, which was not a clerical or arithmetical mistake apparent from the record. The appellant received the assessment order on 11.4.2011, and the rectification order could have been passed until 11.4.2013. However, the appellant filed the first appeal on 27.12.2013 without providing any satisfactory explanation for the delay. The Tribunal rightfully dismissed the appeal due to the lack of explanation for the delay.2. Fatal delay leading to dismissal of appeal:The appellant's failure to file the first appeal under the Act in a timely manner, despite filing an appeal under the 1956 Act within the limitation period, led to the dismissal of the appeal. The rectification applications were viewed as an attempt to create grounds for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal correctly concluded that the delay was not adequately explained, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.3. Denial of input tax benefit due to non-production of forms:The appellant's additional demand under the 1956 Act was primarily due to the absence of declaration in Form C-4 and Form C. The Assessing Authority disallowed input tax for the absence of declaration in Form C-4. The appellant filed rectification applications to rectify the assessment order, but these were not adjudicated upon. The Tribunal rejected the appeal, emphasizing that the rectification applications did not justify the delay in filing the appeal. The denial of input tax benefit was a crucial aspect of the case, but the failure to provide a valid explanation for the delay in filing the appeal led to the dismissal of the case.In conclusion, the High Court found no merit in the appeal, as the appellant failed to explain the delay in filing the first appeal under the Act. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal was upheld, as no substantial question of law was identified. The appeal was subsequently dismissed, and the application for condonation of delay was disposed of accordingly.