TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 1223
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l as in further affidavit dated February 20, 2014 filed by the applicant-State. 3. Such prayer for condonation of delay is strongly opposed by the opponent. The objections of the opponent are two fold. Firstly, it is contended that the Court has no power to condone the delay at all. Elaborating this contention, the counsel Shri P.C. Joshi for the opponent drew our attention to sections 77 and 78 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), to contend that section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, would have no application. Referring to section 84 of the Act, he contended that the power to extend limitation rests only with the Appellate Authority or the Tribunal and not with the High Court. He placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. N.H. Polymers, reported in (2008) 13 VST 73, in which referring to the provisions of Bombay Sales Tax Act, the Court took the view that section 5 of the Limitation Act would have no application to the proceedings arising under the Bombay Sales Tax Act. 3.1 The second opposition of the opponent pertains to explanation rendered by the applicant for the del....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in cases : An appellate authority may admit any appeal or permit the filing of a memorandum of cross objections under section 73 and the Tribunal may admit an application under section 75 or under section 78 after the period of limitation laid down in the said sections, if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the appellate authority or the Tribunal, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or filing a memorandum of cross objections or making the application, within such period." 7. In clear terms, this section 84 of the Act empowers the Court competent to hear the appeals under section 78 of the Act and to accept such appeals after the period of limitation has expired, provided that the Court is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. It is true that in section 84 of the Act, the reference is to the Appellate Authority of the Tribunal. There is no specific mention to the High Court. Nevertheless what is of significance is that such power to condone the delay on being satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause preventing him from preferring appeal, is availa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n a statute which are not there, but "where the alternative lies between either supplying by implication words which appear to have been accidentally omitted, or adopting a construction which deprives certain existing words of all meaning, it is permissible to supply the words" (Craies Statute Law, 7th edn., p. 109). Similar are the observations in Hameedia Hardware Stores v. B. Mohan Lal Sowcar where it was observed that the court construing a provision should not easily read into it words which have not been expressly enacted but having regard to the context in which a provision appears and the object of the statute in which the said provision is enacted the court should construe it in a harmonious way to make it meaningful. An attempt must always be made so to reconcile the relevant provisions as to advance the remedy intended by the statute. (See: Sirajul Haq Khan v. Sunni Central Board of Waqf.) 21. Thus, reconciling the relevant provisions, it is apparent that section 84 of the Act provides for extension of period of limitation even in respect of appeal to the High Court under section 78 of the Act. 22. In Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Essar Power Ltd.,(2008) 4 SCC 7....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Finance Department to get the approval of the Government to file the Tax Appeal. After receiving the approval from the Finance Department, all the papers along with the Judgment/ Order are to be submitted to the G.P. Office to file the Tax Appeal. And thereafter, the G.P. Office after receiving the papers prepares, gets approved and then files Tax Appeal before this Honourable Court. The applicant further says that, in the present case, the Tribunal passed the order on 27.09.2012, in Second Appeal No.54 of 2011. The applicant says that the order dated 27.09.2012 was communicated to the Applicant on 10.10.2012. Thereafter, on 21.06.2013, the proposal to file the tax appeal was sent to the Finance Department of the State, and on 24.07.2013 the Finance Department approved the proposal. After receiving the proposal from the Finance Department, on 29.07.2013, relevant papers along with Judgment/ order were handed over to the office of the Government Pleader (Gujarat High Court) on 13.08.2013 to file the Tax Appeal. The applicant says that, the tax appeal was required to be filed on or before 07.01.2013. However, the same was filed on 16.12.13 and thus there is a delay of 342 days ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....king following observations : "12. This Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Welspun Gujarat Stahl Rohren Ltd. (supra) allowed the condonation of delay by holding thus: " We are conscious that there is a considerable delay in filing the Tax Appeal. We are also aware that much of the delay is attributable to the time consumed in the office of the Government Pleader in drafting the Tax Appeal. We are equally aware that in large number of tax appeals filed by the Government after a long delay, we had not accepted such a ground for condoning the delay. We may, however, notice that in such cases, the delay was inordinate and in majority of those cases, delay was more than 1200 days and in some cases, it crossed 1700 days. In the present case, however, we find for the reasons recorded thereinafter, such delay is required to be condoned. Firstly, in our opinion, the affidavit contents of which are noted above, renders reasonable explanation for such delay and gives reasons why appeal could not be presented within the prescribed time limit. It is pointed out that upon receipt of the judgment of the Tribunal, after obtaining opinion of the concerned officers, a decision was tak....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n presenting the appeal. Delay as accordingly condoned, the order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the High Court for disposal on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. In Prabha v. Ram Parkash Kalra (1987 Supp SCC 339), this Court had held that the court should not adopt an in-justice-oriented approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. The appeal was allowed, the delay was condoned and the matter was remitted for expeditious disposal in accordance with law. 14. In G. Ramegowda, Major v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer (1988 (2) SCC 142), it was held that no general principle saving the party from all mistakes of its counsel could be laid. The expression "sufficient cause" must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally delays in preferring the appeals are required to be condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of delay. In litigations to which Government is a party, there is yet another aspect which, perhaps, cannot be ignored. If appeals brought by Government are lost for suc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ysis suffers, is public interest. The expression "sufficient cause" should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justice oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day's delay. The factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the governmental conditions would be cognizant to and requires adoption of pragmatic approach in justice-oriented process. The court should decide the matters on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit. No separate standards to determine the cause laid by the State vis-a-vis private litigant could be laid to prove strict standards of sufficient cause. The Government at appropriate level should constitute legal cells to examine the cases whether any legal principles are involved for decision by the courts or whether cases require adjustment and should authorise the officers to take a decision or give appropriate permission for settlement. In the event of decision to file appeal needed prompt action should be pursued by the officer responsible to file the appeal and he should be made personally responsible for lapses, if any. Equally, the State cannot be put on the sa....