2012 (11) TMI 923 - HC - Customs

Condonation of Delay of 933 days - held that - In cases involving the Sate and its agencies/instrumentalities, the Court can take note of the fact that sufficient time is taken in the decision making process but no premium can be given for total lethargy or utter negligence on the part of the officers of the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities and the applications filed by them for condonation of delay cannot be allowed as a matter of course by accepting the plea that dismissal of the matter will cause injury to the public interest. As decided by court in case of Post master General v. Living Media India Ltd.2012 (4) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA while not condoning the delay of 427 days by the Postal Department in filing the Special Leave Petition, it was observed that it is the right time to inform all the Government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process - As no satisfactory explanation for inordinate delay of 933 days is tendered by the applicant and the applicant has failed to make out sufficient cause for condoning the delay - present application is dismissed. Rule is discharged.

Summary

Issues:
Condonation of delay in filing Tax Appeal challenging the order of the Central Excise and Service Tax Tribunal.

Analysis:
The applicant sought condonation of a 933-day delay in filing a Tax Appeal against the Tribunal's order. The delay was attributed to a communication gap and the junior standing counsel's unavailability due to another assignment. The applicant argued for a liberal construction of "sufficient cause" to explain the delay. However, the court found the explanation lacking, as the Department failed to take necessary steps despite follow-up actions with the counsel. The court emphasized that the phrase 'sufficient cause' should be liberally construed only when adequate reasons exist, which was not the case here.

The court referenced legal precedents to highlight the importance of justifying delays. In one case, the Apex Court refused to condone a delay, emphasizing that institutional decisions by the government should not be an excuse for negligence. Another case emphasized that negligence, default, or inaction cannot be grounds for condonation of delay. The court further clarified that the explanation for delay must be bona fide and not lacking in diligence. It noted that State instrumentalities cannot expect leniency for total lethargy or negligence in pursuing legal matters.

Ultimately, the court found the applicant's explanation for the 933-day delay unsatisfactory. Despite the applicant's arguments, the court concluded that no sufficient cause was established for condoning the delay. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the rule was discharged.