2014 (1) TMI 1425 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Condonation of delay - Held that - The Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy rights of parties. They virtually take away the remedy. They are meant with the objective that parties should not resort to dilatory tactics and sleep over their rights. They must seek remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The statute relating to limitation determines a life span for such legal remedy for redress of the legal injury, one has suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time, newer causes would come up, necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The statute providing limitation is founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim Interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). It is for this reason that when an action becomes barred by time, the Court should be slow to ignore delay for the reason that once limitation expires, other party matures his rights on the subject with attainment of finality. Though it cannot be doubted that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing the suiter from putting forth his cause but simultaneously the party on the other hand is also entitled to sit and feel carefree after a particular length of time, getting relieved from persistent and continued litigation. If delay has occurred for reasons which does not smack of mala fide, the Court should be reluctant to refuse condonation, will not help the petitioner in any manner keeping in view the kind of explanation rendered herein since I find that here is a case which shows a complete careless and reckless long delay on the part of applicant, which has remained virtually unexplained at all - No question of law, in my view, has arisen in this case, particularly when findings of fact recorded by first appellate court as well as Tribunal are also not shown perverse or contrary to material on record - Condonation denied.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing revision, Condonation of delay, Public interest in revenue matters

Issue 1: Delay in filing revision
The judgment addresses the delay in filing the revision, which was 270 days beyond the stipulated time limit. The Court notes the casual and negligent approach in explaining the delay, highlighting the sequence of events leading to the delayed filing. It emphasizes that a delay of nine months cannot be overlooked, especially when there is no action taken against the responsible individuals. The Court discusses the importance of the term "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Act, emphasizing the need for a liberal construction to advance substantial justice. It cites precedents to support the notion that delay should not be condoned in cases of gross negligence or deliberate inaction.

Issue 2: Condonation of delay
The judgment delves into the principles governing the condonation of delay, emphasizing that the law of limitation aims to prevent dilatory tactics and ensure prompt seeking of remedies. It discusses the significance of time in legal remedies and the public policy foundation of limitation statutes. The Court highlights that delay should not be deliberate, negligent, or lack bona fide, and explains that lack of explanation or sincere attempts can be considered as negligence on the part of the litigant. Various legal precedents are cited to illustrate the judicial approach towards condonation of delay and the factors considered in determining "sufficient cause" under Section 5.

Issue 3: Public interest in revenue matters
The judgment addresses the argument that cases involving substantial questions in revenue matters should not be prejudiced due to limitation constraints, as it would be against public interest. The Court examines the merits of the case and finds that the findings of fact by the first Appellate Court and Tribunal were in favor of the assessee, with no apparent illegality. It concludes that no substantial issue of public importance remains unresolved due to the unsatisfactory delay in filing the revision, leading to the rejection of the application seeking condonation of delay.

Overall, the judgment meticulously analyzes the issues of delay in filing revision, the principles guiding the condonation of delay, and the consideration of public interest in revenue matters, providing a comprehensive legal perspective supported by relevant legal precedents and statutory provisions.