IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. VATAP No. 37 of 2009 Date of Decision: August 13, 2009 M/s Varun Export …Appellant Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Avneesh Jhingan, Advocate, for the appellant. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This order shall disposed of a bunch of 162 appeals filed under Section 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) against order dated 3.7.2008 passed by the Value Added Tax Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh, in Appeal Nos. 134, 135, 137 to 147 and 149 to 151 of 2007-08. However, the facts are being referred from VATAP No. 37 of 2009. The dealer-appellant has filed the instant appeal against the order dated 3.7.2008 passed by the Tribunal condoning the delay in filing the ap- peals by the revenue-respondent State of Punjab and setting aside the order dated 1.9.2003 passed by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Ap- VATAP No. 37 of 2009 (O&M) peals), Ferozepur Division, camp at Amritsar. The grievance of the dealer-ap- pellant is 2 VATAP No. 37 of 2009 (O&M) that the Tribunal has not decided the appeals of the revenue on merits rather al- lowed the same on the ground of limitation only and directed the DETC (A) to decide the controversy afresh. Notice of motion. Mr. Piyush Kant Jain, Addl. AG, Punjab, who is present in the Court, accepts notice. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the appeal was taken up for final disposal today itself. Brief facts of the case are that the dealer-appellant had filed its re- turns for the assessment years 1994-95 to 1996-97. The Assessing Authority, Amritsar, was not satisfied with the returns. On 1.9.1996, a notice in Form ST- XIV was issued to the dealer-appellant but no one had appeared. Thereafter, the Assessing Authority created additional demands of Rs. 19,33,935/-, Rs. 42,96,850/-, Rs. 1,06,116/- and Rs. 10,87,741/- for the respective assessment years due to non-production of declaration forms and proofs regarding tax paid purchases etc. as well as on account of total tax on paddy and rice, vide ex parte order dated 29.4.2002 (A-1). Against the order dated 29.4.2002, the dealer-ap- pellant filed appeals against the DETC (A). The principal ground raised by the dealer-appellant was that the order passed by the Assessing Authority was barred by limitation, as per the amendment made in Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for brevity, ‘the 1948 Act’) by Act No. 12 of 1998. The dealer asserted that the assessment could have been completed within three years from the last date prescribed to file the return. The First Appellate Authority allowed the appeals holding the assessment orders as time barred, vide order dated 1.9.2003 (A-2). On 26.11.2007, the revenue-respondent filed appeals before the Tribunal against the order dated 1.9.2003 passed by the 3 VATAP No. 37 of 2009 (O&M) DETC(A). Along with the appeals, application for condonation of delay of 4 VATAP No. 37 of 2009 (O&M) almost four years in filing the appeals was also filed (A-3). On 3.7.2008, the Tribunal allowed the appeals and condoned the delay. The operative part of the order dated 3.7.2008, passed by the Tribunal reads thus: “ From the order of the assessing authority, it would come out that delay in finalization of the assessment had been due to the fact that the dealer/assessee did not produce record in spite of notices issued and even notice for ex-parte assessment issued. The appeals had been accepted by the DETC (A) only on the point of limitation but in view of the judgement of the High Court in the case of M/s Emkay Industries Vs. State of Punjab, the provisions of the amended act are applicable after the assessment years 1997- 98 onwards whereas in this case the assessment years involved are 1994-95, 1995-96 (PGST), 1995-96 (CST) and 1996-97. Under these circumstances order dated 1.9.2003 of the DETC (A) is liable to be set aside and the appeals are liable to be accepted. When the huge revenue is involved and appeals had been accepted by the DETC (A) only on the technical ground of limitation then I find it a fit case where delay in filing the appeals should be condoned. Under these circumstances delay in filing the appeals is condoned. The appeals are accepted. Order dated 1.9.2003 of DETC (A) is set aside. Since the appeals were not decided on merits and were accepted only on the short ground of limitation, 5 VATAP No. 37 of 2009 (O&M) the DETC (A) shall hear the appeals on merits afresh and decide the same, as expeditiously as possible.” Mr. Avneesh Jhingan, learned counsel for the appellant has vehe- mently argued that no sufficient cause for condonation of delay was put for- ward by the revenue-respondent before the Tribunal but even then delay has been condoned without assigning any reason. He has further submitted that the Tribunal also did not consider the merits of the case while disposing of an ap- plication for condonation of delay. According to the learned counsel it seems that the Tribunal has merely influenced by the amount of revenue involved. Mr. Piyush Kant Jain, Addl. AG, Punjab, on the other hand has contended that the Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned order dated 3.7.2008 because it was a fit case where delay in filing the appeal should be condoned. He has further submitted that it is equally important to safeguard the interest of the revenue where huge amount is involved. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the pa- per book we find that the issue raised in these appeals is no longer res integra. Order dated 3.7.2008 passed by the Tribunal came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court (of which one of us, M.M. Kumar, J., was a member) in VATAP No. 2 of 2009 (M/s Sachdeva and Sons Rice Mills Private Limited, Amritsar v. State of Punjab). The Division Bench has allowed the ap- peal vide order dated 18.3.2009, by observing as under:- “ To our mind, whether it is the State or the individual, unless explanation is offered for the delay that it is either reason- able or satisfactory to the satisfaction of the court, delay can not be condoned. The learned counsel for the appellant has rightly 6 VATAP No. 37 of 2009 (O&M) submitted that no sufficient cause was shown by the State of Pun- jab for condoning the delay. The State, as a litigant, could not claim a special status or a right to condonation of delay without showing at least reasonable amount of care and diligence in pur- suing this case. Moreover, Limitation Act still exists in the Statute book and its provisions had to be complied with. The record clearly spells out that the State had failed to show that it had suffi- cient reason for not filing the appeal in time and there was no jus- tification from the record for condoning the delay merely on the ground that huge revenue is involved and moreover, the Tribunal, while disposing of the application for condonation of delay, could not touch the merits of the case. No reasons have been assigned by the Chairman of the Tribunal, which led him to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The existence of sufficient cause can only be found out from the reading of the order, which, admit- tedly, does not exist in the present case.” We find that the aforementioned reasoning can be safely applied to the present bunch of appeals. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed being squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in VATAP No. 2 of 2009 (supra). The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for deciding the questions of law raised in the appeals by the respondent-State in accordance with law, within four months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. The Tribunal is directed to intimate the parties by issu- ing notices to them of the next date of hearing so fixed by it. 7 VATAP No. 37 of 2009 (O&M) It is pertinent to notice that along with the appeals, the dealer-as- sessee have also filed miscellaneous applications seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeals. Since no serious objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the revenue-respondent, therefore, the same are allowed as prayed. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of all the con- nected appeals. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JASWANT SINGH) August 13, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 8 2 1.VATAP No. 37 of 2009 M/s Varun Export v. State of Punjab2.VATAP No. 38 of 2009 M/s Sachdeva & Sons Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab 3.VATAP No. 39 of 2009 M/s Sachdeva Oil & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab 4.VATAP No. 40 of 2009 M/s Sachdeva & Sons Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab 5.VATAP No. 41 of 2009 M/s Sachdeva & Sons Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab 6.VATAP No. 42 of 2009 M/s Sachdeva & Sons Rice Mills, Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab 7.VATAP No. 43 of 2009 M/s Sachdeva & Sons Rice Mills, Pvt. Ltd. Amritsar v. State of Punjab 8.VATAP No. 44 of 2009 M/s Sachdeva & Sons Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. Amritsar v. State of Punjab 9.VATAP No. 45 of 2009 M/s Sachdeva & Sons Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab 10.VATAP No. 46 of 2009 M/s Sachdeva & Sons Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab 11.VATAP No. 47 of 2009 M/s Sachdeva Oil & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab 12.VATAP No. 48 of 2009 M/s Varun Export v. State of Punjab 13.VATAP No. 49 of 2009 M/s Sachdeva & Sons Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab 14.VATAP No. 50 of 2009 M/s Sachdeva Oil & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab 15.VATAP No. 51 of 2009 M/s Varun Export v. State of Punjab 16.VATAP No. 52 of 2009 M/s Sachdeva & Sons Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. Amritsar v. State of Punjab *****