AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 993
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Judgment and Order of the First Bench of Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, Mumbai. As they raise the common questions of law and facts, they are being decided by this common order. 2. The first and second Notices of Motion, being Notice of Motion Nos.891 of 2016 and 910 of 2016, are directed against the order dated 27th March 2014 passed by the First Bench of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, Mumbai in VAT Second Appeal Nos.119 and 120 of 2013 and the delay in preferring Appeals against those orders is of 548 days. The third Notice of Motion No.1007 of 2016 is directed against the order dated 19th June 2009, also passed by the First Bench of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, Mumbai. It is in VAT Appeal No.9 of 2007 and the delay in this case is of about 2288 days. 3. In the first two Notices of Motion, the cause for the delay is given in a general and omnibus way as stating that, "the delay is due to various factum, especially, related to procedural mandate in Government functioning, which were not in the control of the Applicant-Appellant"; whereas, in the third Notice of Motion, the delay is attributed to "filing of the Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court", which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, the first question that necessarily falls for our consideration is about the maintainability of these Notices of Motion or applications for condonation of delay in preferring the Appeals, as learned counsel for the Respondents has strenuously contested the same by relying upon the decision of this Court in Jonson and Jonson Ltd. (Supra). According to learned counsel for the Respondents, the application of the provisions of the Limitation Act to the proceedings in the Sales Tax matters is very much restricted. In the absence of any express provision providing for applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to these proceedings, even the power of this Court to condone the delay in filing of the Appeal is not available. 8. In order to appreciate this submission, it would be necessary, first, to refer to the provisions of Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002. These Notices of Motion are filed in order to prefer an Appeal under Section 27 of the said Act. The said Section provides that, "the Appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed by the Tribunal, including a Judgment, by way of advance ruling, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. It related to the provisions of Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 and pertains to the delay in preferring a Reference thereunder. In the said case, having regard to the entire scheme of Sections 59 and 60 of Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, it was held that, "the Legislature did not intend to confer any power in the High Court to condone the delay by taking recourse to Section 5 of the Limitation Act. As the Section makes it clear that the Court has to abide by the limit of 90 days and if the application is filed beyond that period, the Court has no powers to condone the delay by taking recourse to Section 5 of the Limitation Act." 15. It was observed that, "the authorities constituted under the Sales Tax Act for deciding the tax dues are not courts, but Tribunals and unless there is an express power conferred by the Act to condone the delay or exclude any period of limitation, the Tribunal would not be clothed with the power to condone the delay." 16. In so far as the power of the Tribunal referring the matter to the High Court beyond the period prescribed by Section 61 is concerned, it was held that, "there was no power in the Tribunal to extend that period and consequently, as t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ernment functioning, which were not in control of the Appellant." 22. Thus, absolutely no cause is given, as such, for condonation of delay and that of about 548 days in preferring the Appeals, except for attributing the same to the specious plea of "various factors". Which were those factors is not at all stated or illustrated. Merely stating that, "those factors relate to procedural mandates in Government functioning, which was not in control of the Appellant", cannot be sufficient, even accepting that, in litigations to which the Government is a party, there are some aspects, which perhaps cannot be ignored and those factors and aspects are required to be stated. 23. As observed by the Apex Court in the case of G. Ramegauda Major etc. Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, along with connected matter, Bangalore AIR 1988 SC 897, that, "in assessing, what in a particular case can constitute 'sufficient cause', for the purpose of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it might be unrealistic to exclude the consideration of the characteristics of the decisions taken at the Government level and the aspects which are peculiar to the functioning of the Government." ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for Government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay." 26. It has, thus, to be remembered that the Government is also a litigant before the Court like any other litigant. Hence, even to invoke these aspects of peculiar functioning of Government, a specific case is required to be made out, as to which are those aspects which, in a particular case, cause delay in preferring the Appeal. 27. In the instant case, there is absolutely no averment in the Notices of Motion or even in the submissions as to which were those peculiar or distinctive aspects of the Government functioning, which resulted in causing delay of about two years in preferring these appeals. Therefore, having regard to the tenor of the aver....