2019 (6) TMI 1016 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court allows writ petitions, quashes orders, emphasizes substantial justice, and remands for fair consideration.

The court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the impugned orders, condoned the 2-day delay, and remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority for ... Condonation of delay in filing appeal - time limitation for admitting of appeal - Section 62(2) of KVAT Act - Validity of reassessment order - HELD THAT: The provisions of Section 62 of the KVAT Act clearly defines that an appeal may be filed before the Appellate Authority in respect of an order of assessment, within thirty days from the date on which the notice of assessment was served on the appellant, and in respect of any other order or proceedings, within thirty days from the date on which the order was communicated to the appellant. The appellate authority may admit an appeal preferred after the period as aforesaid but within a further period of one hundred and eighty days, if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal, within that period. Therefore, Appellate Authority has got power to admit the appeal within 30days +180 days = 210 days. In the present case even assuming the appeal is filed beyond the limitation i.e., 2 days later, the Appellate Authority cannot dismiss the appeal mainly on the ground of technicality since the amount involved in respect of the tax, penalty and interest is about ₹ 1,90,07,280/- and the rights of the parties cannot be deprived on mere technicality. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for, the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. The matter is remanded to Appellate Authority, Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)-2, Shanthi Nagar, Bengaluru for consideration of appeal on merits without reference to limitation and to pass orders strictly in accordance with law - Petition allowed by way of remand. Issues:Challenge to order dated 25.04.2018 by the 2nd respondent and reassessment order dated 23.03.2017 by the 3rd respondent along with demand notice in form VAT 180 dated 23.03.2017. Appeal dismissed as barred by limitation under Section 62(2) of KVAT Act.Analysis:The petitioner, engaged in sales of mobile phones, parts, and accessories under KVAT Act, challenged the reassessment order and demand notice issued by the 3rd respondent. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal as time-barred, leading to the filing of writ petitions.The petitioner argued that the dismissal was erroneous, citing the date of receiving the order, manual appeal filing, and online appeal submission. The respondent contended that the appeal was filed 212 days late, exceeding the statutory limit of 210 days under Section 62(3) of KVAT Act.The court noted the petitioner's business nature, the amount involved, and the timeline of appeal filings. Section 62 of KVAT Act allows a 30-day appeal period, extendable by 180 days for sufficient cause. The Appellate Authority can admit appeals within 210 days.In cases of technicality, substantial justice should prevail over mere delay. Referring to precedents, the court emphasized that denying condonation of delay could defeat the cause of justice, leading to merit-based decisions after due process.Citing the Supreme Court's stance, the court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the impugned orders, condoned the 2-day delay, and remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority for consideration on merits without limitation constraints.Therefore, the court upheld the principles of substantial justice, emphasizing the importance of fair consideration over technicalities, ensuring a just outcome in the appeal process.