- (1.) Allowed as prayed for. VATAP No. 57 of 2012 The present appeal under sub-section (2) of section 36 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter to be referred to as, "the Act") has been preferred against the order dated November 21, 2011 passed by the Haryana Tax Tribunal whereby the second appeal (STA No. 709 of 2010-11) was dismissed as barred by limitation being late by about three months. The appellant has claimed that the following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal: (1) Was the Tribunal, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, legally justified in refusing to condone the delay, and dismissing the substantive appeal as barred by limitation? (2) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, appellant could be made to suffer on account of fault of his counsel when the copy received by the counsel on behalf of the appellant had been delivered to the appellant with delay?
(2.) The facts, in brief, are that the appellant is the sole proprietary concern in the business of purchase and sale of ADV tyres, tubes, axles, and other related items being a registered dealer under both the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The assessing authority, vide order dated January 11, 2010, had finalized the assessment order determining additional tax liability to the tune of Rs. 1,15,181. The appellant filed an appeal before the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Ambala (in short, JETC (A)) which was dismissed vide order dated August 9, 2010. Thereafter, the appellant filed second appeal on January 13, 2011 along with an application for condonation of delay before the Haryana Tax Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred to as, "the Tribunal") under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Tribunal, vide the impugned order dated November 21, 2011, had dismissed the appeal on the ground that the same was time-barred being belated by about three months and by holding that the appellant's conduct was negligent in procuring the copy of the order in time. Resultantly, the present appeal has been filed.
(3.) The question that arises for consideration in the appeal is whether the Tribunal was legally justified in not condoning the delay.;