21 MCA-42-2021...DOC

Meena

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 42 OF 2021

IN

TAX REVISION APPLICATION NO. 627 OF 2021 (FILING NO.)

ASR ENGINEERING AND PROJECTS LTD.,

REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, MUKKAMALLA

VIJAYA

RAGHAVA REDDY

VS

STATE OF GOA, THR. ITS CHIEF SECRETARY

AND 2 ORS

…Petitioner

...Respondents

Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar with Ms. Marie Rosette Pereira, Advocates for the

Petitioner.

Mr. Deep Shirodkar, Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.

CORAM:

M. S. SONAK AND

R.N. LADDHA, JJ.

DATE:

16

th February 2022

P.C.:

1. Heard Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar with Ms. Marie Rosette Pereira, learned

Advocates for the Petitioner, and Mr. Deep Shirodkar learned Additional

Government Advocate for the respondents.

2. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 2 years and 300

days in filing a Tax Revision Application under the Goa Value Added Tax Act,

2005 (said Act) before this Court.

3. The cause stated by the applicant for this delay is to be found in para No.5

Page 1 of 6

16^th February,2022

21 MCA-42-2021...DOC

of the application which reads as follows:

5. That the Petitioner was under bonafide belief that the Order of the

Administrative Tribunal is amenable to the jurisdiction of Revisional

authority exercising revisional powers as per Sec.39 said Act, which

provides for a limitation period of 3 years. Accordingly, the Petitioner

approached its Advocate in Goa in the month of January, 2021 to take

advice for the purpose of filing such revision application. That at the

time of studying the matter the Advocate for the Applicant opined

that the legal effect of merger of Orders as stated in para 3 above, and

that though the revision is provided under Sec.39 of the said Act,

limitation whereof is for 3 years, it is against orders other than those

passed by the Tribunal. It was further advised that the revisional

powers of the Hon'ble High Court would have to be invoked in such

a situation. The Applicant states that it was also pointed out that the

period of limitation for filing a revision to this Hon'ble Court was 60

days from receipt of Order for which necessary application to condone

the delay in filing the Revision Application would have to be filed."

4. Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Advocate for the applicant submits that

the applicant was under bonafide belief that the limitation for instituting the

revision before this Court is three years. He submits that it is only when the

applicant approached his Advocate at Goa he was informed that the limitation is

only 60 days. He submits that there are no malafides involved and this is a

bonafide error which ought to be condoned, if necessary by imposing some costs.

He pointed out that this revision has been instituted within three years from the

date of the impugned order dated 26/02/2018 made by the Administrative

Tribunal.

5. Mr. Shirdokar, learned Additional Government Advocate countered the

aforesaid submissions and referred us to the detailed affidavit by Joanita Vaz e

Dias, Assistant State Tax Officer. He referred to the list of important dates and

Page 2 of 6

16^th February,2022

21 MCA-42-2021...DOC

events and submitted that from this it is very apparent that the applicant was

only interested in delaying the proceedings and avoiding payment of tax. He

submitted that it is only after a notice was issued on 05/01/2021 for provisional

freezing of the accounts of the applicant this revision came to be instituted after

an inordinate delay of 2 years and 300 days. He submitted that the provisions

of the said Act are very clear and there is no ambiguity whatsoever. Therefore,

based on the alleged belief of the applicant, the delay ought not to be condoned.

6. We have considered the rival contentions and also perused the material on

record. We agree with Mr. Shirodkar, learned Additional Government Advocate

that in this case no sufficient case has been shown to condone the inordinate

delay of 2 years and 300