High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

M/S Om Steel Traders vs State Of Haryana And Others on 27 July, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Om Steel Traders vs State Of Haryana And Others on 27 July, 2009
CWP Nos.10837 and 10881 of 2009                                  #1#

     IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
                 HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


                                      CWP Nos.10837 and 10881 of 2009

                                      Date of Order: 27.7.2009

M/s Om Steel Traders, Novelty Road Karnal, Vinod Garg, Proprietor

                                                          ...Petitioner

                                   Versus

State of Haryana and others

                                                          ....Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

Present: Mr. Avneesh Jhingan, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Ms. Ritu Bahri, DAG, Haryana for the respondents.

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

M.M. KUMAR,J

This petition is directed against order dated 24.12.2008 passed

by Haryana Tax Tribunal in STA Nos.90 & 91 in respect of assessment

years 2004-2005.

The basic reason for dismissal of the appeals by the Tribunal is

that the counsel for the appellant was not available and a telegram for

adjournment was sent. It was also observed that in the past also, six dates

were taken. The Tribunal proceeded to decide the application under Section

5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of 89 days delay

observing that on perusal of the application it was found that the reason of

delay in filing of the appeal was long illness of the family member followed
CWP Nos.10837 and 10881 of 2009 #2#

by death. The Tribunal has also taken notice of the fact that no

documentary evidence in support of the aforesaid fact has been furnished

nor any dates of illness or the relationship of the deceased family member

was disclosed. Accordingly, application was dismissed. Before us, learned

counsel for the petitioner has placed on record Death Certificate dated

27.2.2007 showing that Smt Bimla Devi died on 27.2.2007. The

relationship disclosed in para No.5 of the petition (CWP No.10837 of 2009)

is that the deceased was grand-mother of the proprietor of the firm, who had

died after long illness.

Notice of motion was issued to respondents-State and Ms. Ritu

Bahri, DAG, Haryana has put in appearance. She has supported the order of

the Tribunal.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find that the

Tribunal could have decided the application seeking condonation of delay

after insisting upon the petitioner to place on record documents in support

of the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and it

was only after their inability to furnish those documents that the Tribunal

could have proceeded to decide the appeal. Such a view should have been

taken in view of the fact that the petitioner had already deposited the whole

demand raised on 28.8.2008. It could not be concluded that intentionally

delay was being caused in order to avoid the payment of demand or taking

advantage of any stay order passed by the Tribunal. Ms. Bahri, learned

State counsel, has pointed out that the date of death is 11.2.2007 whereas

the appeal itself had been filed after that date. Be that as it may, the long

illness of the mother of the petitioner, which has ultimately resulted in her

death is a relevant factor and in light of documents, which may be placed
CWP Nos.10837 and 10881 of 2009 #3#

on record /file of the Tribunal by the petitioner, the issue is required to be

examined by the Tribunal. Accordingly, we are of the view that the

petitioner deserves to be given a chance by placing on record all the relevant

documents in support of the application and then the Tribunal could decide

the issue of condoning 89 days delay in filing of the appeal.

In view of the above, order dated 24.12.2008 passed in both the

cases is quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for decision

afresh on the application by taking into account the documents regarding

illness and Death Certificate. The parties through their counsel are directed

to appear before the Tribunal on 10.8.2009, however, the same shall be

subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs, which shall be paid by the

petitioner to the respondents-State in each case.

A photo copy of this order be placed on the file of connected

case.


                                                    ( M.M. KUMAR )
                                                         JUDGE




July 27, 2009                                       ( JASWANT SINGH )
manoj                                                     JUDGE