TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 602
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 36 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (in short "the Act") against the orders dated 12.5.2017 (Annexure A-3) passed by the Haryana Tax Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in STA No. 990 of 2014- 15, for the assessment year 2011-12, claiming the following substantial questions of law:- i) Whether the Ld. Haryana Tax Tribunal was justified in allowing the appeal by holding that respondent No.1 was entitled for input tax credit when the selling dealer failed to deposit the tax in the Govt. Treasury? ii) Whether the provisions of Rule 20(4) of Haryana Value Added Tax Rules 2003 are not applicable in the event when the selling dealer failed to deposit the tax in the Govt. Treasury? iii) Whether in view of provisi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....legally allowed refund qua the said purchases made by the assessee as these transactions had never suffered any tax or paid tax into Haryana Government Treasury at any stage. Feeling aggrieved by the order, Annexure A-2, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 30.9.2014 (Annexure A- 3) allowed the appeal and set aside the order, Annexure A-2, passed by the Revisional Authority. Hence, the present appeals by the revenue. Since, the appeals filed by the revenue were barred by limitation, the applications have been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short "the 1963 Act") for condonation of delay in filing the appeals. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 5. The pri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t rule can be laid down in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay, this Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate-Collector (L.A.) v. Katiji N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy and Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil." 7. It was further noticed by the Apex Court in R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 892 as under:- ".....It is not necessary at this stage to discuss each and every judgment cited before us for the simple reason that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not lay down any standard or objective test. The test of "sufficient cause" is purely an individualistic test. It is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... occurring in Section 5 of the 1963 Act should be such so as to do substantial justice between the parties. The existence of sufficient cause depends upon facts of each case and no hard and fast rule can be applied in deciding such cases. 9. The Apex Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. and R.B. Ramlingam's cases (supra) noticed that the courts should adopt liberal approach where delay is of short period whereas the proof required should be strict where the delay is inordinate. Further, it was also observed that judgments dealing with the condonation of delay may not lay down any standard or objective test but is purely an individualistic test. The court is required to examine while adjudicating the matter relating to condo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aking into totality of events which had taken place in a particular case. In the present case after appreciating the matter it cannot be said that there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay. However, the appeal was required to be filed within the stipulated period of limitation of 60 days. But the appellant filed the present appeal on 28.11.2018, after a delay of 503 days. The plea of the appellant as mentioned above would not satisfy the test of sufficient cause. The explanation of the appellant is bereft of justification for the delay caused in filing the appeal keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case. 12. Even otherwise, there is no merit in the appeals. The Tribunal while allowing the appeal....