2024 (1) TMI 767 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court Dismisses Appeals for 10-Month Delay, Criticizes State's Pattern of Negligence Without Imposing Costs.

Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana Versus M/s Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd., Faridabad and another

Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana Versus M/s Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd., Faridabad and another - TMI Issues Involved:1. Condonation of delay in filing four appeals under Section 36(1) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 against the order dated 19.07.2018 passed by the Haryana Tax Tribunal.The judgment addresses the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeals. The order was received on 10.08.2018, and the limitation was till 10.11.2018. The decision to file the appeal was taken on 21.11.2018, after the limitation had expired. The necessary permission was granted on 20.12.2018, and the draft appeal was prepared on 14.01.2019. The department cited various reasons for the delay, including commitments related to the implementation of the Goods and Service Tax Act, election duties, and other official responsibilities. However, the delay of almost 10 months in filing the appeals was deemed inexcusable. The Tribunal's reliance on a previous order was highlighted, showing a pattern of delay in similar cases.2. Failure to learn from past dismissals due to delay:The judgment notes that a lead case, Excise & Taxation Commissioner, Haryana Vs. M/s Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd., was dismissed due to delay by the Coordinate Bench. Despite this, the State failed to expedite the filing of the present appeals, which were filed only after a significant delay following the dismissal of the lead case. The lax approach of the authorities in not learning from past dismissals was criticized, with reference made to a Three Judges Bench decision imposing heavy costs for such delays.3. Comparison with a recent judgment and decision on costs:A recent judgment of the Apex Court was referenced, emphasizing a justice-oriented approach towards the State. However, the facts of the present case were found to be different, as the delay was attributed to the leisurely conduct of State officials. The judgment highlighted a case where delay was condoned due to negligent conduct of the State's counsel, contrasting it with the present situation where no cogent reasons were provided to justify the delay. Despite the option to impose costs for wastage of judicial time, the court refrained from doing so in this instance.In conclusion, the applications for condonation of delay and the main appeals were dismissed due to the lack of sufficient cause to justify the inordinate delay. The judgment underscores the importance of timely action by State authorities and the consequences of repeated delays in legal proceedings.