CHENNAI: A division bench of the Madras High Court has delivered a split verdict on condoning a 78-day delay in filing tax revision appeal against the orders of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal on non-disclosure of assessable turnover by SPI Cinemas Private Limited.
The matter pertains to the tax case revision and condonation petitions filed by the joint commissioner of Tamil Nadu Commercial Tax department against the August 28, 2023, orders of the Tamil Nadu Sale Tax Appellate Tribunal (TNSTAT) on non-disclosure of assessable turnover by SPI Cinemas for the assessment years 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14.
The 90-day initial limitation period for filing the appeals expired on January 13, 2024. However, revisions and petitions to condone the delay were filed after a delay of 78 days, on May 8, 2024. The Registry returned affidavits pointing to certain defects. Subsequently, the rectified affidavit was re-presented on November 20, 2024.
Special Government Pleader C Harsha Raj, representing the petitioner, informed the court that the delay was purely on procedural grounds as there was vacancy in the crucial positions of a deputy commissioner and joint commissioner in the department
He submitted that there was no willful or wanton delay and sought the court to condone the delay. However, Mahir Chablani, the respondent’s counsel, submitted that neither documentary evidence to support the averments nor justification has been provided for the delay.
Justice Anita Sumanth, heading the bench, refused to condone the delay on certain grounds including discrepancies in the original affidavit and the additional affidavit on the reasons for the delay. The judge observed that a ‘dummy appeal’ - the affidavit initially filed - was filed to overcome the limitation, but it was not a valid appeal. After the ‘dummy appeal’ was returned, the department took 186 days for re-presenting the appeal.
The judge said that even the reason for vacancy is not acceptable as there was ample time to appoint a regular officer.
Justice Sumanth dismissed the condonation petitions and the tax case revisions at the SR stage (assigning a number acknowledging filing of petitions).
However, differing with her judgment, Justice Senthilkumar said when the aggrieved party is the government, the court must evaluate the reasons, bearing in mind that the appellant, being a governmental machinery, functions “to safeguard the rights of the citizens and to protect public revenue”.