TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 1000
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w:- i. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the order of the tribunal annexure 'A-6' is not a Non Speaking order? ii. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Department has explained the delay by a 'sufficient cause' and has been able to show due diligence in perusing the remedy? iii. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the decision of the Tribunal in K. Ajesh and Company which was not a binding precedent and was under challenged before the High Court by the department could form a 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay? iv. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the prejudice being caused to the dealer by condonation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a and Sons Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. 1983-84 22.04.2002 5. VATAP No.81/2010 M/s Sachdeva and Sons Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. 1984-85 22.04.2002 6. VATAP No.82/2010 M/s Sachdeva and Sons Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. 1995-96 22.04.2002 7. VATAP No.83/2010 M/s Varun Export 1994-95 29.04.2002 8. VATAP No.85/2010 M/s Sachdeva and Sons Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. 1988-89 22.04.2002 9. VATAP No.87/2010 M/s Sachdeva and Sons Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. 1989-90 22.04.2002 10. VATAP No.88/2010 M/s Sachdeva and Sons Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. 1992-93 22.04.2002 11. VATAP ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), the State preferred appeals before the VAT Tribunal, Punjab (for short, 'the Tribunal'). Along with the appeals, applications seeking condonation of delay of 1,485 days in filing the thereof, were also filed. The Tribunal in the first round of litigation, vide order dated 3.7.2008, accepted the applications seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeals and consequently, the appeals were also accepted on merits. Considering the fact that the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) had not decided the appeals on merits, remitted the cases back to him for fresh decision on merits. Aggrieved against the order, the appellants preferred appeals bearing VAT Appeal No.2 of 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....14 -- State of Haryana vs. M/s Windorz India Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad and another, decided on 22.9.2014. 6. He further submitted that in The State of Punjab vs. M/s Jain Bharat Industries, Raman Mandi, District Bathinda, VSTI 2008 C-248 and The State of Punjab vs. M/s Ganesh Oil Mills, Maur Mandi, District Bathinda, VSTI 2008 C-251, the Tribunal had dismissed the applications filed by the State seeking condonation of delay of six years on similar grounds. It was further submitted that it would be appropriate, if the matters are considered by this Court on merits. In terms of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Patiala Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited, Rakhra, District Patiala, (2015) 50 PHT 118 (P&H), t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the State being impersonal, the words 'sufficient cause' should be given liberal consideration. Ultimately, the revenue of the State is concerned, it is the public exchequer, which will suffer. As far as merit of the controversy is concerned, in response to the contention raised by counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the State could not dispute the fact that the dates on which, the assessment orders were passed by the assessing authority for the assessment years in question, the same were time barred, if considered in the light of the judgment of this Court in Patiala Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited's case (supra). 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. 9. The undisputed facts, wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tted back to the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision on merits. The order was set aside by this Court. On re-consideration, the Tribunal again accepted the applications seeking condonation of delay and directed the matter to be listed for hearing on merits. 11. Considering the totality of the facts, as noticed above, in our opinion, it will be futile exercise, if the matters are remitted back to the Tribunal, even if the present appeals are dismissed. On merits also, the appellants are entitled to get relief in view of the judgment of this Court in Patiala Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited's case (supra), as all the assessment orders are barred by limitation as prescribed in Section 11 (4) of the Act. A....