STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. CHEMOIL ADANI PVT. LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application under section 5 of the Limitation Act has been preferred by the State of Gujarat to condone the delay of 210 days in preferring the tax appeal challenging the judgment and order dated September 27, 2012 passed by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Second Appeal No. 690 of 2011. Shri Jaimin Gandhi, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the applicant-State of Gujarat has submitted that the delay has been explained in support of the prayer to condone the delay. It is submitted that after the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal was received by the Department on October 5, 2012, note was put by the Commercial Tax Inspector on October 10, 2012, by GA-3 on 03/12/2012, by GA-2 on December 3, 2012, by GA-4 on December 3, 2012, by GA-1 on December 4, 2012. Thereafter, the proposal to file the tax appeal against the said judgment was sent to the Finance Department on January 1, 2013. The Finance Department, Gandhinagar, granted permission on February 12, 2013 and on receipt of the said permission, immediately all the relevant papers were sent to the office of the Government Pleader for filing the tax appeal.

(2.) It is submitted that the applicant has a very meritorious case and the amount involved in the matter is very huge. It is submitted that even the decision passed in second appeal, which is subject-matter of the tax appeal, may adversely affect the similar dealers in whose cases also large amount of revenue is involved. Therefore, relying upon the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation Ltd., 2011 334 ITR 269 as well as the decision dated March 15, 2013 of the Division Bench of this court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Welspun Gujarat Stahl Rohren Ltd.,2013 1 VST 558 rendered in Civil Application No. 253 of 2012, it is requested to condone the delay.

(3.) Shri S.N. Thaker, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent has tried to oppose the present application by submitting that the delay has not been properly explained at all. It is submitted that there is a huge delay which has not been explained sufficiently therefore, relying upon the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd., 2012 3 SCC 563, it is requested to dismiss the present application.