The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay, especially in government appeals, and the equal applicability of the Limitation Act to the State.

SHALINI PHANSALKAR JOSHI, J.

1. These three Notices of Motion are preferred by the Revenue seeking condonation of delay in preferring appeals under Section 27 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002, against the Judgment and Order of the First Bench of Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, Mumbai. As they raise the common questions of law and facts, they are being decided by this common order.

2. The first and second Notices of Motion, being Notice of Motion Nos. 891 of 2016 and 910 of 2016, are directed against the order dated 27th March 2014 passed by the First Bench of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, Mumbai in VAT Second Appeal Nos. 119 and 120 of 2013 and the delay in preferring Appeals against those orders is of 548 days. The third Notice of Motion No. 1007 of 2016 is directed against the order dated 19th June 2009, also passed by the First Bench of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, Mumbai. It is in VAT Appeal No. 9 of 2007 and the delay in this case is of about 2288 days.

3. In the first two Notices of Motion, the cause for the delay is given in a general and omnibus way as stating that, "the delay is due to various factum, especially, related to procedural mandate in Government functioning, which were not in the control of the Applicant-Appellant" whereas, in the third Notice of Motion, the delay is attributed to “filing of the Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court”, which came to be disposed of on 7th February 2011, and, thereafter, to “the various internal correspondence of the Revenue Department with its superior authorities, for seeking permission to file the Appeal.”

4. Learned counsel for the Respondents herein have strongly resisted these Notices of Motion on two counts; firstly, by challenging maintainability of the Notices of Motion on the ground that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is not applicable to the proceedings under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002. To advance this submission, the reliance is placed on the Judgment of this Court in Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, VAT-III, Mumbai Vs. Jonson and Jonson Ltd. & Another, (2015) 79 VST 478 (Bom).

5. The second ground, on which the Notices of Motion for condonation of delay are opposed, is the failure of the Applicant-Appellant to make out sufficient cause for condonation of such long duration of about two years in the first two Notices of Motion and more than six to seven years in preferring the third Notice of Motion. It is submitted that absolutely no satisfactory, much less, cogent or reasonable grounds are made out for condonation of delay in first two Notices of Motion, except for making a bald and general statement that the delay is on account of “various factors” and in the third Notice of Motion, attributing the same to the alleged internal correspondence.

6. According to learned counsel for the Respondents, therefore, this belated wisdom dawn on the Revenue, of challenging the impugned orders of the Tribunal, is required to be dealt with strictly, especially, in the case of Revenue matters, where such causes are taken up after the long period of years together. It is submitted that the delay in Revenue matters adversely affects the steady inflow of revenues and the financial stability of the State. Therefore, when the object is to ensure speedy and final determination of fiscal matters within a reasonable certain time schedule, allowing such Notices of Motion for condonation of delay to unearth the cause, which is set at rest long back, is acting against the spirit of the Revenue matters and, therefore, this Court should be slow in entertaining such Notices of Motion.

7. In view of the submissions advanced before us by learned counsel for the Revenue Mr. V.A. Sonpal and learned counsel for the Respondents Mr. P.V. Surte, the first question that necessarily falls for our consideration is about the maintainability of these Notices of Motion or applications for condonation of delay in preferring the Appeals, as learn