Madhya Pradesh High Court
Walmart India Private Limited vs Deputy Commissioner Of Commercial ... on 9 July, 2025
Author: Atul Sreedharan
Bench: Atul Sreedharan
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30470
1 VATA-18-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
ON THE 9 th OF JULY, 2025
VALUE ADDED TAX APPEAL No. 18 of 2025
WALMART INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
Versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, BHOPAL,
DIVISION MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Agrawal - Senior Advocate with Shri Utkarsh Kumar
Sonkar - Advocate for the appellants and Shri Parth Parikh, Shri - Gopal
Mundhara, Advocates appearing through Video Conferencing.
Shri Rajwardhan Padaraha - Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
WITH
VALUE ADDED TAX APPEAL No. 19 of 2025
WALMART INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
Versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, BHOPAL,
DIVISION MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Agrawal - Senior Advocate with Shri Utkarsh Kumar
Sonkar - Advocate for the appellants and Shri Parth Parikh, Shri -
Gopal Mundhara, Advocates appearing through Video Conferencing.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHARTI GADGE
Signing time: 11-07-2025
18:00:43
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30470
2 VATA-18-2025
Shri Rajwardhan Padaraha - Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Atul Sreedharan 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHARTI GADGE Signing time: 11-07-2025 18:00:43 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30470 3 VATA-18-2025 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, Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHARTI GADGE Signing time: 11-07-2025 18:00:43 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30470 4 VATA-18-2025 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.
(ATUL SREEDHARAN) (AMIT SETH)
JUDGE JUDGE
b
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHARTI GADGE
Signing time: 11-07-2025
18:00:43