Court allows writ petition, sets aside order & remits matter for fresh consideration. Timely appeal under VAT Act.

The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration of the application for condonation of delay under Section 35(2) of the VAT Act. The court held that the appeal should be considered timely if filed within the extended period prescribed by the Supreme Court in light of the Covid-19 pandemic, emphasizing the need to interpret the orders broadly to serve justice and alleviate hardships faced by litigants.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 35 of the Goa Value Added Tax Act, 2005.
2. Applicability of the Supreme Court's order on the extension of limitation due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Summary:

Issue 1: Condonation of Delay in Filing an Appeal
The petitioner, a dealer registered under the Goa Value Added Tax Act, 2005, challenged an order dated 31.03.2023 by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, which refused to condone the delay in filing an appeal under Section 35 of the VAT Act. The petitioner filed the appeal on 17.08.2022 against an assessment order dated 04.06.2020, served on 11.06.2020. The petitioner also submitted proof of payment as required under Section 35 of the VAT Act.

Issue 2: Applicability of the Supreme Court's Order on Extension of Limitation
The respondent argued that the appeal was time-barred and not filed within the 90-day extension period provided by the Supreme Court due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The Supreme Court, in its order dated 10.01.2022 in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, extended the limitation period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022. The respondent dismissed the application for condonation of delay, stating that the appeal was filed beyond the extended period.

Court's Analysis and Conclusion:
The court noted that the assessment order was served during the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, and thus, the limitation period should be computed from 01.03.2022. The court emphasized that the Supreme Court's orders aimed to alleviate hardships faced by litigants during the pandemic and should be interpreted broadly to serve justice. The court referred to the Supreme Court's observations in Prakash Corporates vs. Dee Vee Projects Limited, highlighting the necessity to exclude the period affected by the pandemic from the limitation period.

The court concluded that the respondent's interpretation was incorrect and that the appeal should be considered timely if filed within the extended period prescribed by the Supreme Court. The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration of the application for condonation of delay under Section 35(2) of the VAT Act on its own merits and in accordance with the law. No order as to costs was made.

---