COMMISSIONER OF VALUE ADDED TAX Vs. ABHISHEK ELECTRICALS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal was originally dismissed following this Court's previous Division Bench's ruling in Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s. Kandhari Radio & Ors., CEAC No. 6/2007 decided on 22.04.2009. The rationale for dismissing the appeal was that the High Court was not empowered to entertain a delayed appeal and it did not specifically assess the reason for delay in filing of the appeal. After the said decision, the provisions of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as "the DVAT Act") were amended by insertion of two provisos to Section 81(2)(a). The second proviso provided, inter alia, that the first proviso - inserted w.e.f. 01.02.2011 would deem to have been in force from 01.04.2005. As a result of this, the Supreme Court in the appeal preferred by Special Leave granted liberty to the Revenue to approach this Court in a review petition.

(2.) IN furtherance of the leave granted, the Revenue filed C.M. Nos 11405 -06/2014 seeking review. This review proceeding was ultimately allowed and the delay in the filing of the appeal was also condoned consequently by the order dated 07.11.2014. The appeal was thereafter listed before this Court on 20.01.2015 and subsequently today.

(3.) IN the appeal STA No. 33/2009, the only question which this Court is called upon to decide is the grievance against the DVAT Tribunal's order holding that upon the lapse of 8 months in considering the assessee's objection, such objections and contentions of the assessee would be deemed to have been allowed. This issue has now been decided in the Revenue's favour in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Behl Construction : ILR (2009) III Delhi 599. After noticing several decisions of the Supreme Court on the effective provisions which stipulate that something be done within a specified period, the Court ruled that the time limits indicated in Section 74 are "merely directory". In Behl Construction (supra), the Court observed pertinently as follows: -