Excise And Taxation Commissioner, Haryana Through Excise And Taxation Officer Panipat vs. M/S Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Vpo Baholi, Panipat
Original PDF →Facts
The Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana (Appellant) filed three appeals before the High Court challenging orders passed by the VAT Tribunal. The Tribunal had allowed appeals filed by M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Respondent) on the grounds of limitation and subsequently dismissed the Appellant's review applications. The Respondent's assessment for the year 1996-97 was framed by the Assessing Authority on 31.12.2002, which was later rectified on 05.02.2003. The Respondent's appeal before the Tribunal was allowed on 10.04.2003, holding that the assessment was framed beyond a reasonable period of 5 years. The Appellant's review application was dismissed on 02.06.2017. The present appeals before the High Court were filed with significant delays (269, 285, and 287 days).
Held
The High Court held that the appeals filed by the Appellant were barred by limitation and also lacked merit. The Court found the reasons provided by the State for the condonation of delay to be unconvincing, noting a consistent pattern of delay in the State's second appeals, indicating a lack of seriousness in pursuing the State's cause. The Court reiterated that merely being the State cannot be a ground for condonation of delay. Furthermore, the Court found that the assessment was framed beyond the period of 5 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, and no convincing explanation was provided for this delay. Relying on the judgments in Shubh Timb Steels Ltd. and State of Punjab Vs. Bhatinda District Coop. Milk P. Union Ltd., the Court held that assessments or other orders should be passed within a reasonable period, and 5 years was considered the maximum period for framing an assessment or revision. The Court rejected the Appellant's attempt to distinguish these judgments. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed on the grounds of limitation and merits.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeals filed by the Appellant are barred by limitation, considering the significant delay in filing and the reasons provided for condonation. 2. Whether the assessment order passed by the Assessing Authority for the year 1996-97 was barred by limitation, having been framed beyond a reasonable period of 5 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Arguments for the Appellant (Excise & Taxation Commissioner, Haryana): The Appellant argued for condonation of delay in filing the appeals before the High Court, attributing the delay to administrative processes. They also attempted to distinguish the judgments relied upon by the Tribunal, arguing that the scheme of the Punjab VAT Act is different. The Appellant contended that the VAT Tribunal erred in allowing the Respondent's appeals solely on the ground of limitation. Arguments for the Respondent (M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited): The Respondent argued that the assessment order was indeed framed beyond a reasonable period of 5 years, citing the judgments of this Court in Shubh Timb Steels Ltd. Vs State of Punjab and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Bhatinda District Coop. Milk P. Union Ltd. The Respondent supported the VAT Tribunal's decision to allow their appeal on the grounds of limitation.
Sections Cited
Section 36(1) of Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003, Section 9(2) of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, Section 28(2) of Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
#1# IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of Decision:-24.01.2020 Excise & Taxation Commissioner, Haryana. ......Appellant. Versus M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited, VPO Baholi, Panipat & Anr. ......Respondent.
VATAP No.271 of 2018(O&M) Excise & Taxation Commissioner, Haryana. ......Appellant. Versus M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited, VPO Baholi, Panipat & Anr. ......Respondent.
VATAP No.280 of 2018(O&M) Excise & Taxation Commissioner, Haryana. ......Appellant. Versus M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited, VPO Baholi, Panipat & Anr. ......Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LALIT BATRA Present:- Ms. Mamta Singla Talwar, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for Appellant in all cases. *** JASWANT SINGH, J.
By this common order VATAP No. 265, 271 & 280 of 2018 VINAY MAHAJAN 2020.01.24 14:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document #2# involving same question are disposed of. The Appellant State of Haryana through instant Appeals under Section 36(1) of Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short ‘VAT Act’) is seeking quashing of orders passed by VAT Tribunal which has allowed Appeals of present Respondent on the sole grounds of limitation and thereafter dismissed review application of present Appellant. There is delay in filing all the Appeals before this Court and Appeals are accompanied with application seeking condonation of delay. Question of limitation is involved in all the three appeals and for the sake of convenience facts are obtained from Appeal No. 265 of 2018. The Assessing Authority vide assessment order dated 31.12.2002 framed assessment for the year 1996-97 under Section 9(2) of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short ‘CST Act’) and Section 28(2) of Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (for short ‘HGST Act’). The said assessment order was GSTR No. 1 of 2005 decided on 20.04.2010 and judgment of Hon’ble The Appellant-State filed review application before Tribunal which came to be dismissed vide order dated 02.06.2017. The State has filed present appeal along with application seeking condonation of delay of VINAY MAHAJAN 2020.01.24 14:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document #3# 269 days. In Appeal No. 271 of 2018, there is delay of 285 days and in Appeal No. 280 of 2018, there is delay of 287 days. Having heard Ld. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana and scrutinized record of the case, we find present appeals deserve to be dismissed on the ground of limitation as well merits. We have noticed that there is delay in every second appeal of the State. The reason of delay in every case is cyclostyle which shows attitude and seriousness of authorities to follow cause of the State. We are not convinced with the explanation furnished by State for the condonation of delay. Merely state is Appellant cannot be ground for condonation of delay. It is known that in Sate matters every file moves from one officer to another which cannot be ground at least convincing explanation for seeking condonation of delay except where delay is minor. We further find that assessment was framed beyond the period of 5 years from the end of relevant assessment year. No reason or explanation much less convincing has been furnished for framing assessment after the expiry of 5 years from the end of assessment year. It is settled law that in the absence of prescribed period of limitation, Court cannot import any period of limitation, however it is also true and trite law that every action at least quasi judicial order should be passed within reasonable period of limitation and what is reasonable period would depend upon facts of each case. In the present case, assessment was framed beyond 5 years and no limitation period has been prescribed under the Act and Rules made there-under to frame assessment, thus Assessing Authority was duty bound to frame assessment within reasonable period which cannot be normally beyond 3 years and in any case 5 years. This Court in the case of VINAY MAHAJAN 2020.01.24 14:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document #4# Shubh Timb (Supra) and Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhatinda District Coop. Milk (Supra) has declared 5 years period as maximum period to frame assessment or revision. The State Counsel has attempted to distinguish these judgments on the ground that scheme of State of Punjab is different. We are not inclined to countenance argument of Appellant and reject the same because ratio of all the judgments noticed in impugned order as well cited by counsel for the State is same i.e. assessment or any other order should be passed within reasonable period which would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case. The present appeals are bereft of merits, thus deserve to be dismissed on the ground of limitation as well merits. Accordingly, all the appeals are dismissed. ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE ( LALIT BATRA ) JUDGE January 24th, 2020 Vinay Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No VINAY MAHAJAN 2020.01.24 14:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.