Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Jagdambey Elastomer Udyog vs State Of Haryana And Others on 28 June, 2010
Author: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel, Ajay Kumar Mittal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 8128 of 2010
Date of Decision: 28.6.2010
M/s Jagdambey Elastomer Udyog
....Petitioner.
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.
PRESENT: Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Ritu Bahri, DAG, Haryana for respondent No.1. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J
1. In this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to accept personal bond as security for hearing the appeals on merits and setting aside of orders dismissing the appeals for not furnishing security.
2. Against demands raised under the provisions of Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, the petitioner-firm filed appeals which were dismissed by respondent No.3 vide order dated 3.5.2005 (Annexure P-8) on the ground that the petitioner failed to comply with the direction dated 14.6.2004 requiring furnishing of surety bonds as condition for hearing of the appeals. On further appeals, the Sales Tax Tribunal vide order dated 3.3.2006 (Annexure P-9) allowed the petitioner to furnish surety bond on or before 31.5.2006 on which the appeals were to be heard on merits. The petitioner did not furnish the surety bond within the prescribed time. It filed an application on 29.3.2010 (Annexure P-10) stating that the firm was closed down and CWP No. 8128 of 2010 -2- the business was wound up and in such circumstances, the petitioner could not arrange the surety bond. When the petitioner was able to make necessary arrangements, the application was filed seeking revival of the appeals by accepting the personal bond keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had one factory and a residential house of which value was approximately Rs.50 lacs as against demand of around Rs.15.33 lacs. No order was passed on the application.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to orders Annexures P-6 and P-7, noticing hardship to the petitioner and its contention about prima facie case for hearing of the appeal. Learned counsel for the State submitted that there is no explanation for delay on the part of the petitioner in moving this Court.
4. Even though learned counsel for the State is right in submitting that the petitioner could have furnished personal bond as now proposed in the year 2006 itself and could have moved this Court at that time instead of moving this Court after four years, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it would be expedient in the interest of justice that case of the petitioner is examined by the appellate authority on merits by accepting the personal bond furnished by the petitioner as a condition for hearing the appeals.
5. We accordingly set aside the orders dismissing the appeals for want of furnishing of surety bonds and direct that the appeals of the petitioner be heard on merits taking into account the personal bond already furnished. The petitioner may appear before the appellate authority for further proceedings on 26.7.2010. CWP No. 8128 of 2010 -3-
6. The petition is disposed of.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
JUDGE
June 28, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
gbs JUDGE