M/S M. K. Enterprises, Faridabad vs. State Of Haryana And Others

Held

The High Court held that the appeal did not raise any question of law, let alone a substantial question of law, warranting consideration under Section 36 of the Act of 2003. The Court noted that the copy of the order dated July 29, 2009, from the First Appellate Authority, was furnished to Mr. J.D. Batheja, Advocate, on August 11, 2009, on behalf of Mr. S.K. Sarwal, Advocate, who represented the appellant. Mr. Batheja had stated that he immediately handed over the copy to Mr. Sarwal. There was no contrary evidence to suggest the order was not received by the appellant or their counsel. The appeal was preferred after a period of four and a half years from the passing of the order. The Tribunal had arrived at a finding of fact that there was no explanation for condonation of the inordinate delay. Therefore, the High Court found no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's decision.

Facts

The appellant, M/s M.K. Enterprises, engaged in iron and steel trading, filed a VAT appeal against an order of the Haryana VAT Tribunal dated May 9, 2017. This order had dismissed their appeal against the First Appellate Court's order of July 29, 2009. The First Appellate Court had dismissed the appellant's appeal against the assessing authority's order, which disallowed input tax credit. The disallowance was based on the ground that selling dealers had not deposited tax and their purchases were unverifiable. The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal before it due to delay and laches. The appellant contended that the delay occurred because they had not received the copy of the First Appellate Authority's order, and therefore, the delay should be condoned and the appeal decided on merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Haryana VAT Tribunal should be condoned, considering the appellant's contention that they had not received the copy of the order from the First Appellate Authority? (Question of fact and law, turning on principles of condonation of delay). Contentions: Appellant: Argued that the delay in preferring the appeal before the Tribunal was due to non-receipt of the order copy from the First Appellate Authority, and therefore, the delay deserved to be condoned, allowing the appeal to be decided on merits. Revenue/State: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondents regarding the condonation of delay. However, the Tribunal's finding, as noted by the High Court, was that there was no explanation for the delay.