TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 856
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that purpose, petitioner No.1 was instructed to sign certain documents relating to registration of petitioner No.1 firm which was granted under the VAT Act w.e.f. 21.08.2007. Even the bank accounts were also opened up with the assistance of Mr. Nirav Patel and Mr. Rakesh Patel and for that purpose, signatures of petitioner No.2 was taken for opening one bank account with ICICI Bank. All transactions were carried out by those two persons named as Nirav Patel and Rakesh Patel. It has been learnt that by forging signature of petitioner No.2 even two bank accounts were opened up in the State Bank of India and Dena Bank. 3. On 28.03.2008, the officers from VAT department visited the business and residential premises of the petitioner and since the petitioner had no knowledge, Mr. Nirav Patel remained present at the time of search proceedings. When petitioner No.2 asked Nirav Patel, it was informed that its merely a routine cross verification by the officers in respect of business. 4. Petitioner No.2, in fact, was a small person not having adequate education and was merely running a mobile and watch repairing shop. As per the case of petitioner No.2, the entire business was carried out....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fide belief that since the second appeal in earlier point of time is very much pending which relates to the very same period and therefore, this subsequent first appeal against regular assessment order will be kept pending and therefore, did not track the same. By that time, the second appeal against the provisional assessment order came to be allowed on 10.03.2015 wherein the learned Tribunal has remanded the matter back to the first appellate authority for considering the case on merit. Again the petitioner has remained under a bona fide impression that by virtue of this, the consolidation would take place of both the appeals i.e. against the provisional assessment order as well as against regular assessment order and therefore, was waiting. However, in the meantime, on 01.06.2015 suddenly he was served with a notice of recovery from VAT Department. The petitioner informed the VAT department about the pendency and chronology of events which took place and requested to keep recovery in abeyance. 7. At that point of time, upon inquiry, the information was received by the petitioner No.2 that the subsequent first appeal, which was filed against regular assessment, was already dispo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the decision of Second Appeal No. 548 of 2010 and this was the bona fide belief and therefore contended before the learned Tribunal to condone the delay. It was also contended by the learned advocate Mr. Sheth that the order of first appeal had not been served nor was informed by his consultant at any point of time and there was no deliberate or mala fide intent in causing the delay and there was no negligence on part of the petitioner. It was also submitted that as soon as he received a certified copy of the order of first appeal the second appeal came to be filed within a period as required under section 73 of the Act. It was submitted that even the request which was made before the Tribunal was based upon the cogent explanation and the bona fide belief was properly explained and therefore the learned counsel contended that liberal approach ought to have been adopted by the Tribunal. On the overall circumstances, the learned counsel submitted that the delay which had caused may kindly be condoned so as to see that merit of the case of the petitioner can be examined on proper adjudication. Learned counsel has therefore requested the court to set aside the impugned order and the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y passed an order and therefore, no interference be made in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 11. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and having perused the material on record and the findings arrived at by the Tribunal, following facts are emerging from the proceedings. (I) The learned Tribunal has arrived at a specific finding that only explanation which was given about late filing of appeal was that the petitioner was not aware about passing of an order by the Deputy Commissioner in the first appeal challenging final assessment order. The learned Tribunal specifically found that this ground is not correctly projected. It is reflected from the covering letter dated 14.08.2015 which indicates that the order was very much served upon the petitioner. (ii) It was also specifically found by the Tribunal that there is no explanation offered of delay for the period commencing from 29.03.2012 to 14.10.2015 and therefore, the plea of order being not served is not accepted by the Tribunal. This categorical finding arrived at on the basis of record of Deputy Commissioner's proceedings. (iii) It was also emerging from the record that the Second Appeal No. 5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ealing with the plea of seeking condonation of delay has observed like this: "11. The courts should not adopt an injustice-oriented approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. However the court while allowing such application has to draw a distinction between delay and inordinate delay for want of bona fides of an inaction or negligence would deprive a party of the protection of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of discretion by the Court for condoning the delay. This Court has time and again held that when mandatory provision is not complied with and that delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, the court cannot condone the delay on sympathetic grounds alone. 12. It is also a well settled principle of law that if some person has taken a relief approaching the Court just or immediately after the cause of action had arisen, other persons cannot take benefit thereof approaching the court at a belated stage for the reason that they cannot be permitted to take the impetus of the order passed at the behest of some diligent person." 15. Yet in another decision in case of Union of I....