M/S Delton Cables LTD., Faridabad (Haryana) vs. State Of Haryana And Others

Held

The High Court held that there was no merit in the appeal. Regarding the first issue, the Court found that the appellant did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the appeal under the Act, especially when an appeal under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, was filed within the limitation period. The rectification applications filed by the appellant were considered as an attempt to cover up the delay and create a ground for condonation. The Court noted that rectification under Section 19 of the Act is for clerical or arithmetical mistakes and has a time limit. The assessment order was supplied on 11.4.2011, and rectification could only be done up to 11.4.2013, whereas the appeal was filed on 27.12.2013. Therefore, the delay was not condoned. Consequently, the second and third issues, which were contingent on the condonation of delay, were also not considered favorably. The Tribunal was found to have rightly dismissed the appeal as barred by time due to the lack of a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The Court found no illegality or perversity in the Tribunal's findings. No substantial question of law arose. The appeal was dismissed.

Facts

M/s Delton Cables Ltd. (appellant) is challenging orders passed by the Haryana Value Added Tax Tribunal. The Assessing Authority had created an additional demand of ₹27,11,689/- for the assessment year 2007-08 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, due to absence of declaration in Form C-4 and Form C. An appeal under the 1956 Act was filed, and the case was remanded for production of balance 'C' Forms. Subsequent orders reduced the demand under the 1956 Act. However, under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act (the Act), input tax was disallowed for want of Form C-4. The appellant filed rectification applications under the Act, which were not adjudicated. The appellant then filed an appeal under the Act against the assessment order dated 4.2.2011, communicated on 11.4.2011, on 27.12.2013, seeking condonation of 931 days' delay. The delay was attributed to the pending rectification applications. The first appellate authority rejected the condonation application and dismissed the appeal as time-barred. The Tribunal also rejected the appeal. The appellant then filed this appeal before the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether there was a delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority, considering the appellant filed applications for rectification which were not entertained, and the appeal had to be filed without a copy of the order? (Question of fact and law) 2. Whether, even if there was a delay, it was fatal to be dismissed as barred by limitation, particularly when the issue was settled by the High Court during the period? 3. Whether the appellate authorities should have taken cognizance of the fact that the additional demand was on account of denial of input tax benefit due to non-production of forms, which could be entertained at any stage as per settled law? Contentions of the Appellant: The appellant argued that the delay in filing the appeal was justified because rectification applications were pending. They contended that the delay should be condoned, especially as the issue was settled by the High Court. Furthermore, they argued that the denial of input tax credit due to non-production of forms was an issue that could be rectified at any stage. Contentions of the Revenue/State: The judgment records no specific contentions for the respondents (State of Haryana and others) regarding the delay or the merits of the input tax credit claim. However, the High Court's reasoning implies that the respondents likely argued that the delay was not sufficiently explained and that the rectification applications did not justify the delay in filing the appeal.