2013 (9) TMI 790 - HC - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - Delay in filing tax appeal - Government process - Held that - ordinarily the Courts have liberally condoned the delay and are also expected to adopt justice oriented approach rather than giving any undue importance to the technicalities. We are also not oblivious of the fact that the delay is not to be explained by the litigant on literal sense on day-to-day basis. However, we cannot disregard the vital requirement of law that when there is no justification for delay, the substantial law of limitation cannot be marred advancing the cause of liberal approach - There can be no straight-jacket formula adopted which can be applied uniformly in all matters, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. In absence of any satisfactory explanation coming forth for condonation of delay, we are of the opinion that no liberal attitude requires to be adopted; particularly considering the inordinate delay in preferring this Application. Only because the applicant is the State, it cannot be absolved of its responsibility to fulfil the mandate of law. Even if day today explanation is not desired, for a long period after the sanction of Finance department also, nothing emerges on record to indicate due care or diligence to satisfy the requirement of explaining sufficiency of cause - Following decision of UNION OF INDIA Versus TATA YODOGAWA LIMITED 1988 (9) TMI 53 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and COLLECTOR OF C. EX., MADRAS Versus A. MD. BILAL & CO. 1999 (2) TMI 70 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - Decided against Revenue.

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the Tax Appeal.
2. Explanation for the delay by the applicant.
3. Legal precedents and principles regarding condonation of delay.
4. Judicial discretion in condoning delay.
5. Impact of delay on public interest and revenue.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Tax Appeal:
The primary issue in this case is the application for condonation of a delay of 1371 days in filing a Tax Appeal challenging the order dated 6th May 2009, in Revision Application No. 129 of 2001 passed by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad. The applicant-State argued that the delay was due to the procedural requirements and administrative mechanisms inherent in governmental processes.

2. Explanation for the Delay by the Applicant:
The applicant-State detailed the administrative steps required before filing the Tax Appeal, including studying the judgment, obtaining opinions from various officers, seeking approval from the Finance Department, and then submitting the papers to the Government Pleader's office. The applicant claimed that these steps consumed time, leading to the delay. The order dated 6-05-2009 was communicated to the applicant on 30-05-2009, and the proposal to file the appeal was sent to the Finance Department on 15-12-2012, which approved it on 2-2-2013. The appeal was eventually filed on 6-5-2013, resulting in a delay of 1371 days.

3. Legal Precedents and Principles Regarding Condonation of Delay:
The applicant relied on several Supreme Court judgments to support the condonation of delay. In *G. Ramegowda Major v. Special Land Acquisition Officer*, the Supreme Court recognized that governmental decisions are slow due to procedural red-tape and a certain amount of latitude is permissible. The Court emphasized that public interest should not suffer due to procedural delays. Similarly, in *N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy*, the Supreme Court held that rules of limitation should not jeopardize the rights and interests of parties, especially when large amounts of tax revenue are at stake. The applicant also cited *State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani*, which reiterated a liberal approach in condoning delays.

4. Judicial Discretion in Condoning Delay:
Despite the arguments and precedents cited by the applicant, the Court highlighted the necessity of a "justice-oriented approach" and the importance of not undermining the substantial law of limitation. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in *Lanka D. Venkateswarlu v. State of A.P.*, which stated that liberal and justice-oriented approaches should not be used to jettison the substantial law of limitation, especially when there is no justification for the delay. The Court also cited *Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh*, emphasizing that "sufficient cause" must be legally and adequately reasoned, and the delay must be unavoidable despite due care and attention.

5. Impact of Delay on Public Interest and Revenue:
The Court noted that the explanation provided by the applicant was general and lacked specific details. The procedural delay due to the government's administrative mechanism did not constitute a sufficient cause. The Court emphasized that even though the applicant is the State, it cannot be absolved of its responsibility to comply with the mandate of law. The Court also observed that the dismissal of the appeal would not have far-reaching ramifications on the exchequer or deny an opportunity regarding the substantial question of law for the assessment year in question.

Conclusion:
The application for condonation of delay was not entertained due to the lack of a satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay. Consequently, Tax Appeal {Stamp} No. 1345/2013 was rejected. The Court maintained that the judicial discretion in condoning delay must be exercised within reasonable bounds and based on sufficient cause.

← Previous Next →