PALIWAL OVERSEAS PVT LTD Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of VATAP Nos. 3 and 5 of 2012 as according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the facts involved therein are similar and the grounds seeking condonation of delay before the first appellate authority in both the appeals are identical. In VATAP No. 3 of 2012, there was a delay of 789 days whereas in VATAP No. 5 of 2012, there was a delay of 654 days in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority. For brevity, the facts are being taken from VATAP No. 3 of 2012. This appeal has been filed by the assessee under section 36 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (in short, "the Act") against the order dated June 13, 2011 (annexure A3) passed by the Haryana Tax Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as, "the Tribunal") claiming the following substantial questions of law :

(2.) The facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal as narrated therein are that the assessment for the assessment year 2003-04 was framed vide order dated March 5, 2007. It was found that the provisional refund which was allowed to the assessee-dealer as an exporter was excess amounting to Rs. 28,06,654. Thereafter, a notice was issued for charging of interest on excess refund and vide order dated September 10, 2007 (annexure A1), the assessing authority charged interest of Rs. 17,82,168. The said order was communicated to the assessee on September 17, 2007. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the appellate authority. As the appeal was delayed, an application for condonation of delay was also filed along with the appeal. The appellate authority vide order dated February 11, 2010 (annexure A2) dismissed the appeal being time-barred as there was delay of 789 days. Still being dissatisfied, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated June 13, 2011 (annexure A3) upheld the order of the appellate authority and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Hence, the present appeal.

(3.) The solitary question that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeals which was belated ?