SINGAL TRADING CO Vs. ORISSA SALES TAX TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DELAY in presentation of second appeal filed by the Revenue having been condoned by the Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal (in short, "the Tribunal"), the assessee has filed this writ application for interference. According to it, no reason whatsoever much less plausible, was indicated to warrant such condonation.

(2.) SANS unnecessary details, factual position which is almost undisputed is as follows : Petitioner filed appeals before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Cuttack I Range, Cuttack against the order of assessment made for the assessment year 1991-92. By order dated March 16, 1994 the Assistant Commissioner reduced the demand from Rs. 50,716 to Rs. 3,316. The order was issued by the Assistant Commissioner on March 29, 1994, and same was received in the office of the Commissioner of Sales Tax on the same day. The last date for filing the second appeal was May 28, 1994. But the appeal was actually filed on September 24, 1994. Thus, there was a delay of 120 days in presentation of the appeal. It is to be noted here that there was no application for condonation of delay filed along with the appeal. It was filed subsequently. On February 28, 1995 Registrar of the Tribunal found that there was delay and issued notice to rectify the defects. It was also pointed out that there was delayed presentation of the appeal. Fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice was granted to rectify the defects. On May 15, 1995 a petition was filed by the Revenue to allow time to rectify the defects. Time till May 27, 1995 was granted. The defects were not rectified on May 27, 1995, and therefore, the Registrar directed the matter to be placed before the Chairman. Notice in form XX of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947 (in short, "the Rules") was issued on February 7, 1996 fixing March 8, 1996 for rectification of defects. The order of the Chairman dated March 8, 1996 shows that the notice issued in form XX had been duly served and the Revenue removed all the defects except relating to limitation. An application for condonation was filed on June 18, 1996. The matter was directed to be placed for hearing on the question of limitation. From the records of the Tribunal it appears that on May 23, 1996 the Chairman directed to place the petition for condonation of delay before the Division Bench for hearing on the question of limitation. The matter was heard by a Division Bench of the Tribunal on June 18, 1996, and impugned order condoning delay was passed.

(3.) ACCORDING to learned counsel for the petitioner, no reason is shown for condonation of delay and the order condoing the delay is outcome of nonapplication of mind. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that liberal approach is to be taken while dealing with the question relating to condonation of delay in respect of matters filed by the State.