2014 (2) TMI 959 - 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:
Condonation of delay in filing appeal beyond the prescribed time limit.

Analysis:
The revision was filed 234 days beyond the time limit, seeking condonation of delay. The explanation provided cited correspondence between department officials. However, a significant delay of six months remained unexplained, which was deemed reckless and negligent by the court. The court emphasized that delay may be condoned in the interest of justice if no gross negligence or deliberate inaction is imputable to the parties seeking condonation.

In cases involving the government as a party, the court noted that decisions are collective and institutional, affecting public interest. The court highlighted that a mere superficial explanation without honest intentions to proceed against negligent or fraudulent officers would not suffice for condoning delay in public interest. The court referred to previous judgments emphasizing the importance of substantial justice over technical considerations.

The court discussed the concept of "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Act, stating that it should be construed liberally to advance substantial justice. The court highlighted that the rules of limitation aim to prevent dilatory tactics and ensure prompt seeking of remedies. The court emphasized that delay should not be deliberate, negligent, or lack bona fide, and lack of explanation could be detrimental to the party seeking condonation.

Various legal precedents were cited to illustrate the principles guiding the court's discretion in condoning delays. The court emphasized the need for reasonable diligence in prosecuting appeals and adopting a pragmatic approach under Section 5 of the Act. The court concluded that the delay in the present case was careless and reckless, lacking a satisfactory explanation, leading to the rejection of the application seeking condonation of delay.

Furthermore, the court examined the merits of the case and found no substantial questions of law or illegality in the findings of the first Appellate Court and Tribunal. As no significant issue remained undecided due to the delay, the court rejected the application seeking condonation of delay.