9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the Supreme Court under section 29 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.
Detailed Analysis: The Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Madhya Pradesh, filed an application under section 29 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, seeking leave to appeal before the Supreme Court against a previous judgment. The application was delayed by 27 days, and initially, no request was made to condone the delay. Subsequently, an application was filed, supported by an affidavit, but the necessary details and particulars regarding the delay were not provided despite multiple opportunities. The applicant failed to furnish the memo of the special leave petition filed before the Supreme Court or any supporting affidavit, raising doubts about the bona fides of the application (CWT v. Meghaji Girdharilal). The applicant argued that the matter involved a substantial question of public importance, warranting condonation of any delay. Reference was made to a decision by the apex court and differences in opinions among various High Courts. However, after hearing both parties, the court concluded that the application should be dismissed as time-barred. The court emphasized that the law should be administered even-handedly, without granting preferential treatment to the State as a litigant seeking condonation of delay (Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji). The court highlighted that the State, representing the collective cause of the community, should not be treated differently in legal proceedings. Despite the possibility of delays due to bureaucratic processes, the court emphasized the need for the State to provide sufficient cause for condonation of delay. In this case, the court found that the applicant failed to establish a valid reason for the delay, as no special leave petition was filed or withdrawn before the Supreme Court. The absence of an affidavit from the Department or senior official further weakened the applicant's case, leading to the dismissal of the application under section 29 of the Act. In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition as time-barred, emphasizing that the Government or any authority should not receive preferential treatment over ordinary litigants. The court's decision was based on the lack of sufficient cause shown by the applicant and the failure to provide necessary details and affidavits to support the request for condonation of delay. No costs were awarded in this matter.
|
