Baba Metals vs State of Haryana and Others

Ritu Bahri, J.—The present appeal u/s 36 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, "the Act") is against order dated December 6, 2012 (annexure A4) whereby the Haryana Tax Tribunal (for brevity "the Tribunal") has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant on the ground that the appeal is beyond the period of limitation. The assessing authority had assessed the appellant for a demand of Rs. 23,85,875 for the assessment year 2004-05 vide order dated December 4, 2012. Feeling aggrieved against the abovesaid order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Faridabad, which was dismissed vide order dated October 9, 2007. The claim of the appellants of input-tax credit on the basis of non-verification of purchases and failure of the assessee to produce VAT C-4, was held to be non-compliance of mandatory provisions of the Act and sub-rule (4) of the rule 20 of the Rules, 2003.

This order was challenged by the appellant before the Tribunal after a delay of four years. It is order dated December 6, 2012 (annexure A4) dismissing the said appeal as beyond the period of limitation, which is subject-matter of challenge in the present appeal.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Mr. Agnihotri, learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently argued that after the order was passed by the appellate authority on October 9, 2007, F.I.R. was lodged against the proprietor of the firm, i.e., Mr. Dhiraj. He was arrested on December 26, 2007 and was sent to judicial custody for 14 days. He remained involved in the police enquiry which adversely affected his business activities. Thereafter, on July 28, 2008, second baby girl was born after some complications. His mother underwent eye surgery in the year 2010 and ultimately he filed an appeal on August 14, 2012.

The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the above stated circumstances are the sufficient cause for filing the appeal after a gap of four years before the Tribunal and the Tribunal should have condoned the delay and passed an order on the merits.

It is not disputed that the appellant had received the order on May 23, 2008. The appellant was arrested in the F.I.R. However, he was granted bail on January 17, 2008. He has not given any explanation as to why after receiving of order on May 23, 2008, the appeal could not be filed in time. The birth of a daughter and surgery of eye of his mother will not come within the sufficient cause as per section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 as such events are part of everyday life of the individuals. Section 5 of the Limitation Act reads as under; 5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases.--Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.

In view of the above, order dated December 6, 2012 (annexure A4) does not suffer from any material illegality. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed.