Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Bahu Plaza Jammu Th Nageshwar Bhatdwaj vs. Chairman State Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Panama Chowk Jammu And Others

Held

The Court held that the petitioner could not be considered to have been prosecuting the writ petition bona fide in a manner that would warrant the exclusion of the period spent before the High Court. The petitioner was aware of the statutory remedy of appeal before the Tribunal but chose to file a writ petition before the High Court, which remained pending for approximately fourteen years before being withdrawn. The Court found no justification to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Tribunal in dismissing the appeal due to the unexplained delay of 17 years and 12 days. The Court noted that the previous writ petition's dismissal order did not provide for the exclusion of the period spent before the High Court for availing the alternative remedy of appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, the writ petition was found to be without merit.

Facts

The petitioner, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), filed a writ petition challenging an order dated March 31, 2023, passed by the State Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal had dismissed BSNL's appeal against an order under the GST Act, 1962, and the J&K Entry Tax of Goods Act, 2000, due to an unexplained delay of 17 years and 12 days. BSNL contended that the time spent prosecuting a previous writ petition (OWP No.710/2007) before the High Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn on November 16, 2022, should be excluded for calculating the limitation period. This previous writ petition had been pending from August 30, 2007, to November 16, 2022.

Key Issues

1. Whether the period spent by the petitioner in prosecuting writ petition OWP No.710/2007 before this Court, from August 30, 2007, to November 16, 2022, should be excluded for the purpose of computing the limitation period for filing an appeal before the State Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, as argued by the petitioner. 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the petitioner's appeal on the grounds of an unexplained delay of 17 years and 12 days in filing the appeal, as held by the Tribunal. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was due to bona fide prosecuting the matter before the respondents and the High Court, and therefore, the time spent in the High Court should be excluded. The petitioner relied on the fact that the previous writ petition was pending for a significant period. Respondent's Contention: The respondents, through the Dy. AG, did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, the Tribunal's decision implies that the respondents likely argued against the exclusion of time spent in the High Court and for upholding the dismissal due to the substantial delay.