Case Law Details
Walmart India Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Madhya Pradesh High Court)
The Madhya Pradesh High Court considered two VAT appeals filed against an order dated 15 February 2019, along with applications seeking condonation of a delay of nearly six years. The appeals were required to be filed within 90 days but were instituted only in 2025. The appellants contended that their authorized representative had appeared before the Appellate Board on 15 January 2019 and made detailed submissions, after which they believed the matter remained pending. According to them, no copy of the order was received for a considerable period. On this belief, a second stay application was filed on 13 June 2024, followed by further attempts in September 2024 and February 2025 to seek a hearing and interim protection, apprehending recovery proceedings. Only after making an enquiry at the Registry of the Appellate Board did the appellants claim to have learned that the appeals had already been disposed of on 15 February 2019.
The appellants further submitted that the order was allegedly served on a store worker who was stated to be an authorized person, and that the order was not communicated to the company by post, courier, or email with digital signature, as required under Rule 57 of the M.P. VAT Rules. On this basis, they argued that the delay was bona fide and deserved to be condoned.
After hearing the submissions, the Court was not persuaded by the explanation offered. It noted that the appellants were a company with a global presence and access to a regular and professional legal team. The Court found it unacceptable that no steps were taken for nearly five years after the hearing in 2019 to ascertain the status of the appeals from the Appellate Authority. The Court observed that the first recorded step taken by the appellants was the filing of a second stay application only in 2024, which itself demonstrated prolonged inaction. The explanation that the appellants were merely awaiting intimation of the outcome was held to be insufficient to justify such an inordinate delay.
The Court concluded that the delay of six years remained unexplained and could not be condoned, particularly when the statutory period for filing appeals was 90 days. Accordingly, the applications for condonation of delay were dismissed. As a consequence, the VAT appeals themselves were also dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
The present appeals are VAT appeals, both are against the order dated 15.02.2019. The appeals have been filed after a passage of six years from the date of impugned order.
1. Heard on I.A. Nos.11024/2025 and 10830/2025, which are the applications for condonation of delay. The relevant paragraphs are from 8 onwards.
2. According to the appellants, the appeals were heard by the authority on 15.01.2019, and the authorized representative of the appellants herein attended the hearing and made detailed submissions before the Appellate Board. Thereafter, the appellants were under the bonafide belief that the matter was still pending before the Appellate Board, and because there was no order received even after the lapse of considerable time (period is not mentioned), the appellants filed another stay application on 13.06.2024, in other words, after the submissions were concluded in the year 2019 and after wasting five years, they filed second stay application requesting for stay on the balance amount demanded by the department. However, even after waiting for several months, the second stay application was never taken up for adjudication by the Appellate Board. Thereafter, the appellants being apprehensive of recovery proceedings being initiated in the absence of stay by the Appellate Board, made another attempt to pursue the hearing by filing a letter dated 02.09.2024 to the Appellate Board, which is three months after the second application for stay was filed by the appellants. Thereafter, the appellants say that as there was no intimation from the Appellate Board, despite filing of fresh stay application and a request for earlier hearing, the appellants once again made an application for stay on 11.02.2025. However, as the steps taken by the appellants bore no fruit, the appellants made an enquiry at the Registry of the Appellate Board in relation to the status of the appeals, and it was at this point of time, that it came to the knowledge of the appellants that the appeals had already been disposed of by the impugned order, which was passed on 15.02.2019.
3. Learned senior counsel for the appellants submits that upon the enquiries being made, the company was informed that a copy of the order was served upon one of the store workers of the appellants’ company and he was the authorized person to receive such copy of the order. Learned counsel for the appellants has also stated that the order was never communicated to the appellant by post, courier or by e-mail with digital signature, as it ought to have been done as per Rule 57 of the M.P. VAT Rules.
4. Heard the submissions put forth by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants.
5. The one fact that this Court is unable to accept is the inordinate delay of six years by a company which has presence all over the world with a regular and professional legal team. What should have done immediately after the hearing was over in 2019, was to ascertain from the Registry of the Appellate Authority with regard to the status of the appeals. Instead of that, the delay of almost five years remains unexplained except for stating that the appellants were awaiting intimation of what happened to the appeals. In fact, the first step that was taken by the appellants, as per the applications for condonation delay itself, was by their filing a second application for stay in the year 2024, which itself is after a lapse of five years.
6. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the inordinate delay of six years in filing the appeals, which should have been done otherwise within 90 days, has not been explained and, therefore, I.A. Nos.11024/2025 and 10830/2025, applications for condonation of delay are dismissed, consequently, the appeals are also dismissed.
Author Bio
