Case Law Details
Splendor Landbase Limited Vs Joint Commissioner of State Tax Gurugram and others (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
In the case of Splendor Landbase Limited Vs Joint Commissioner of State Tax Gurugram and others, the Punjab and Haryana High Court addressed the issue of delay in filing an appeal against an assessment order. Despite the delay, the Court considered the provisions of the General Clauses Act to calculate the limitation period.
The Court noted that under the relevant Act, the limitation period for filing an appeal is four months, inclusive of one month for condonation if valid reasons are presented. However, the appellate authority had rejected the appeal, citing it as beyond the prescribed limitation period. The petitioner argued that the delay should have been condoned, as there were valid reasons for the delay, and pre-deposit had been made.
Upon examination, the Court found that when calculated according to the General Clauses Act, the appeal was filed within the stipulated four-month period. Additionally, the petitioner provided reasons for the delay, which the Court deemed sufficient for condonation. Therefore, the Court directed the matter to be remanded back to the appellate authority for reconsideration.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
2. The issue involved in the present case is against the order of assessment dated 30.05.2023 filed on 30.09.2023, the limitation provided under the Act is four months, which includes one month of condonation, if reasonable grounds are mentioned in the application seeking condonation. The appellate authority can, therefore, look into the reasons for delay of one month and is also empowered to condone the delay. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate authority has rejected their application stating that it is beyond the period of limitation of 3+1 (four months) and therefore, it has no power to condone the delay. The appellate authority has also refused to entertain the appeal on the ground that pre-deposit has been done after the period was over.
3. We have carefully noticed that the period of four months has to be calculated in terms of the General Clauses Act. Once the appeal has been submitted on 30.09.2023 in the order passed on 30.05.2023, if calculated mathematically it would be less than four months. The petitioner has also given out other reasons for not filing the appeal within the period of three months. In the opinion of this Court the delay ought to have been condoned, which was within the powers of the appellate authority upto one month.
4. On the aforesaid facts, we allow the present petition and remand the matter back to the appellate authority to decide the appeal more so as the amount of pre-deposit has already been deposited by the petitioner.
5. The parties shall remain present before the appellate authority after submitting copy of order passed by this Court.
6. The petitioner is always free to move an application seeking interim protection as well.
7. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Author Bio
