HAWKINS COOKERS LTD. Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall govern the disposal of three writ petitions bearing WP Nos.15783/2019, 15787/2019 and 15788/2019, as according to the learned counsel for the parties, the issues involved therein are identical. However, for the sake of convenience, the facts are extracted from WP No.15783/2019.

(2.) In WP No.15783/2019, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 10.05.2019 passed by the M.P. Commercial Tax Appellate Board, Bhopal (respondent No.2) in Reference No.234/CTAB/08 for the year 1997-98 whereby the Board has declined to condone the delay in filing reference application and resultantly, dismissed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short "the Act of 1963"?) as well as the reference application.

(3.) Brief facts, relevant for the disposal of present petition, are that the petitioner was assessed under the M.P. Entry Tax Act, 1976 for the period 01.04.2000 to 31.03.2001. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer levying the entry tax, the petitioner preferred second appeal before the respondent No.2, which was dismissed vide order dated 01.03.2008. Against the order of the Appellate Board, the petitioner preferred reference application under Section 70(1) of the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994 read with Section 13 of the M.P. Entry Tax Act, 1976 before the respondent No.2 for referring the matter to the High Court for its opinion. The application was required to be filed within a period of 60 days from the date of communication of such order. Since the reference application was filed on 16.12.2008, which was barred by limitation, the petitioner also filed an application for condonation of delay of four months. The Board vide impugned order dated 10.05.2019 has dismissed the application for condonation of delay holding that the application was barred by four months whereas the petitioner has given the reasons for three months' delay but the same is not sufficiently explained and further, for remaining one month, the delay has not been explained at all. Hence, this petition has been filed.