2020 (3) TMI 1448 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Condonation of delay of 469 days in filing the appeal - sufficient explanation for delay was given or not - HELD THAT - The Supreme Court has in STATE OF UP. VERSUS AMAR NATH YADAV 2014 (5) TMI 823 - SUPREME COURT followed its earlier decision in OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL VERSUS LIVING MEDIA INDIA LTD. 2012 (4) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT where it was observed Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the Government Departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. More recently, the Supreme Court in THE STATE OF BIHAR ORS. VERSUS DEO KUMAR SINGH ORS. 2019 (5) TMI 1660 - SC ORDER has reiterated the position in Chief Post Master General holding that The law of limitation apparently does not apply to the State Government according to its conduct. That such condonation of delay is no more admissible on the pretext of Government working lethargy is clear from the judgment of this court in The Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd. The Court does not find a satisfactory explanation for a delay of 469 days in filing the appeal to have been offered by the Applicant/Appellant. The application is accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Delay of 469 days in filing the appeal.

Analysis:
The judgment addresses the delay of 469 days in filing the appeal. The Applicant/Appellant provided reasons for the delay, citing administrative processes and approvals required within the government departments. However, the judgment refers to previous Supreme Court decisions emphasizing that government bodies are obligated to perform their duties diligently and cannot seek condonation of delay without a reasonable and acceptable explanation. The judgment highlights that condonation of delay should be an exception and not an anticipated benefit for government departments. Reference is made to specific cases where the Supreme Court reiterated that government authorities cannot approach the court due to incompetence of their officers without facing consequences. The Court found the explanation for the delay unsatisfactory and dismissed the application for condonation of delay, subsequently leading to the dismissal of the appeal itself.

In conclusion, the judgment emphasizes the importance of government bodies fulfilling their duties diligently and not seeking condonation of delay without a valid explanation. The Court's decision to dismiss the application for condonation of delay and consequently the appeal itself underscores the need for accountability and adherence to timelines, even for government entities.