Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Clt Enterprise on 17 April, 2015

Author: M.R. Shah

Bench: M.R. Shah, S.H.Vora

         O/OJCA/740/2014                                 ORDER



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                CIVIL APPLICATION (OJ) NO. 740 of 2014

                   In STAMP NUMBER NO. 3197 of 2014

                                   With
                     STAMP NUMBER NO. 3197 of 2014
                                   With
                     STAMP NUMBER NO. 3198 of 2014
                                     In
                     STAMP NUMBER NO. 3197 of 2014
==========================================================
                      STATE OF GUJARAT....Applicant(s)
                                 Versus
                      CLT ENTERPRISE....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS VACHA DESAI AGP for the Applicant(s) No. 1
RULE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
        CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
               and
               HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.H.VORA
                     Date : 17/04/2015


                               ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH)

1. The present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been preferred by the applicant - State of Gujarat requesting to condone the delay of 148 days in preferring the tax appeal against the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad dated 10.04.2014 passed in Second Appeal No.124 of 1993 by which, the learned Tribunal has allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent - dealer and has held the orders Page 1 of 4 O/OJCA/740/2014 ORDER of assessment dated 13.08.1992 and 13(31).03.1984 to 31.05.1984 for the relevant year as barred by limitation and quashed and set aside the same.

2. Notice of rule upon the respondent is unserved on the ground that the respondent - dealer has shifted the premises.

3. However, we have considered the main appeal on merits and heard Ms.Vacha Desai, learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of the applicant - State on merits so as to satisfy ourselves, prima facie, whether there is any substance in the main appeal or not? If it is found that the appeal lacks merits, in that case, to condone the delay and thereafter, to dismiss the appeal on merits would be exercise in futility and/or it will cause unnecessary hardship to the respondent - dealer and the dealer would have to unnecessary incur the expenses towards the advocate fees etc.

4. Ms.Desai, learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of the State has fairly conceded that as such, the issue/question raised in the main tax appeal is squarely covered against the revenue in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 09.02.2015 in the case of State of Gujarat V/s. Jagdish Oil Mill in Sales Tax Reference No.2 of 2014 with Tax Appeal No.80 of 2015 with Special Civil Application 2093 of 2015.

5. We have also considered and gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal holding the assessment orders for the relevant year as barred by limitation and consequently, quashing and setting aside the assessment orders.

Page 2 of 4

O/OJCA/740/2014 ORDER

6. Considering the reasoning given by the learned Tribunal as well as the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdish Oil Mill (supra), it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has committed any error in allowing the appeal preferred by the respondent - dealer and in holding the assessment orders for the relevant year as barred by limitation. Under the circumstances, the main tax appeal lacks merits.

7. Under the circumstances, to condone the delay and thereafter, to dismiss the appeal on merits would cause undue hardship to the respondent - dealer and the dealer would have to incur unnecessary expenses.

8. Under the circumstances, as there is no error committed by the learned Tribunal in allowing the appeal and in holding the assessment orders for the relevant year as barred by limitation and, therefore, the appeal lacks merits, we dismiss the present application for condonation of delay. Consequently, the main Tax Appeal (stamp) No.3197 of 2014 also stands dismissed on the ground of limitation. Consequently, OJCA (stamp) No.3198 of 2014 for stay also stands dismissed. Rule is discharged.





                                                                 (M.R.SHAH, J.)




                                     Page 3 of 4
          O/OJCA/740/2014                 ORDER




                                         (S.H.VORA, J.)
Hitesh




                           Page 4 of 4