- (1.) This appeal has been filed by the assessee under section 36 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (in short, "the Act") against the orders dated March 29, 2010 (annexure A1) passed by the assessing officer, dated October 4, 2010 (annexure A2) passed by the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), dated February 22, 2012 (annexure A4) passed by the Haryana Tax Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in STA No. 61 of 2011-12 and dated December 12, 2012 (annexure AT), passed by the Tribunal in STM No. 1 of 2012-13, for the assessment year 2006-07, claiming the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether the delay in filing appeal before the first appellate authority late by five months is so fatal to be dismissed as barred by limitation and particularly when apparently Mr. Amit Garg, who received the copy of the order was suffering from mental depression and was undergoing treatment and could not deliver the copy of the order for further appeal? (ii) Whether the Tribunal should not have taken cognizance of decision of the honourable Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Gheru Lal Bal Chand v. State of Haryana, 2011 45 VST 195 cited in CWP No. 6573 of 2007 dated September 23, 2011 keeping in view the merits of the case that the additional demand is only on account of input tax disallowing on the basis the seller did not discharge tax obligation?" Briefly stated, the facts necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The appellant-M/s. Super Metals, Faridabad, was engaged in the trading of iron and steel, etc. It had been filing its returns and discharging tax obligations. The assessment for the year 2006-07 was framed by the assessing authority vide order dated March 29, 2010 (annexure A1) making additional demand of Rs. 1,02,605. However, the benefit of input tax amounting to Rs. 2,00,086 on account of purchases made from M/s. Ayush Metals and M/s. Swastik Trading Company was disallowed as the selling dealer did not discharge their tax obligations. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before respondent No. 4-Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) who vide order dated October 4, 2010 (annexure A2) confirmed the order passed by the assessing authority. Still dissatisfied, the appellant filed an appeal dated March 21, 2011 (annexure A3) before the Tribunal. As the appeal was barred by limitation, an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed for condonation of 159 days' delay. The Tribunal vide order dated February 22, 2012 (annexure A4) rejected the application for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the assessee filed an application (annexure A5) for restoration of the appeal. The assessee filed written submissions (annexure A6). The Tribunal vide order dated December 12, 2012 (annexure A7) dismissed the application for restoration of the appeal. Hence, the present appeal.
(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) The primary question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the delay of 159 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was liable to be condoned in the facts and circumstances of the present case.;