- (1.) CM No. 7849 -CII of 2013 is allowed and delay of 55 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
(2.) THIS appeal has been filed by the Appellant Company under Section 36 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (in short "the Act'") against the order dated 9.10.2012 (Annexure P - 4 passed by the Haryana Tax Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal").
(3.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts for adjudication of the present appeal are that the appellant is a trading concern engaged in the business of iron and steel goods. Its assessment case was decided by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 1.3.2007 (Annexure A -1) by virtue of which demand of Rs. 4,48,570/ - was created on account of rejection of input tax claim of Rs. 7,99,114/ - on purchase of Rs. 1,99,77,851/ - claimed to have been made from different firms. The appellant preferred an appeal against the said order of Assessing Officer before the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Rohtak, which was dismissed vide order dated 4.1.2010 (Annexure A -2). Aggrieved with the same, the appellant filed an appeal against the order, Annexure A -2, before the Tribunal on 1.2.2011 along with an application for condonation of delay of about 11 months in filing the appeal. The Tribunal vide order dated 9.10.2012 (Annexure A -4) dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation after observing that the appellant failed to show any reasonable or sufficient cause, warranting condonation of delay. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the delay which occurred in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was not intentional, but on account of the fact that its counsel representing before the first appellate Authority did not supply the brief of the case in time to it. The papers of the case were received by the appellant on 29.1.2011 and immediately an appeal was filed accompanied with an application for condonation of delay. He further submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay ought to have been condoned by the Tribunal as the appellant should not be made to suffer for the lapses of its counsel. Examining the legal position relating to condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short, the "1963 Act") it may be observed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another, 2010 5 SCC 459 laying down the broad principles for adjudicating the issue of condonation of delay, in paras 14 and 15 observed as under: - "14. We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time. 15. The expression "sufficient cause" employed in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and similar other statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serves the ends of justice. Although, no hard and fast 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.";