2014 (4) TMI 1036 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Condonation of Delay of 1 year and 128 days Bar of limitation - sufficient cause u/s 5 of Act, 1963 Held that - Judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Katiji 1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME Court followed - When substantial justice and technical considerations are taken against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for, the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay - The Court further said that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so - 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) Lapse on the part of litigant in approaching Court within time is understandable but a total inaction for long period of delay without any explanation whatsoever and that too in absence of showing any sincere attempt on the part of suiter, would add to his negligence, and would be relevant factor going against him. Relying upon Vedabai @ Vaijayanatabai Baburao Vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil and others 2001 (7) TMI 117 - SUPREME Court - The Court said that u/s 5 of Act, 1963 it should adopt a pragmatic approach - A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days - In the former case consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls for a more cautious approach but in the latter case no such consideration may arise and such a case deserves a liberal approach Here, 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 since it is found 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 - Therefore, this Court do not find any reason to exercise judicial discretion exercising judiciously so as to justify condonation of delay in the present case. Since it is contended that issue raised are substantially in public importance, this Court has also looked into merits of the matter and finds that first Appellate Court as well as Tribunal both recorded findings of fact in favour of assessee and there is no patent or otherwise illegality therein - No question of law 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 - This is not a case wherein substantial questions are involved and would go undecided on account of unsatisfactory delay by revisionist - The application seeking condonation of delay is, therefore, rejected Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

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

Delay in filing revision:
The judgment addresses the delay of 1 year and 128 days in filing a revision, which the court deems as barred by time. The court details the series of events leading to the delay, highlighting the lack of sufficient cause for the delay. The court emphasizes that a wholly unexplained, reckless, and negligent approach to delay cannot be overlooked, especially when no action has been taken against the erring individual responsible for the delay.

Condonation of delay:
The court delves into the legal framework of Section 5 of the Act, 1963, which allows for the condonation of delay in filing appeals in the interest of justice. Citing the case law of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Katiji, the court emphasizes the need for substantial justice to prevail over technical considerations. The judgment stresses that while the law of limitation applies equally to private individuals and the government, condonation of delay in public interest must be supported by genuine reasons, particularly when the delay is due to fraud, bad faith, or negligence.

Public interest in revenue matters:
The court discusses the importance of public interest in revenue matters and the need for timely action by the government to prevent harm to public interest. It highlights that decisions made by the government affect public interest and that delays in such cases should not be condoned without valid reasons, especially when there is no intention to address fraud or bad faith by government officials.

Substantial questions of law:
The judgment examines the contention that cases involving substantial questions of law should not be dismissed solely on the ground of limitation. The court reviews the merits of the case and finds that no substantial questions of law are involved, as the findings of fact by the first Appellate Court and Tribunal are in favor of the assessee and not shown to be perverse. Consequently, the court rejects the application seeking condonation of delay, emphasizing the lack of substantial questions of law in the case.