2022 (7) TMI 1502 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Condonation of delay of 530 days in filing the appeal of revenue before Tribunal - Sufficient reasons for delay or not - contrary to the decision of Supreme Court in the matter of Chief Post Master General Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. Anr. 2012 (4) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT or not - HELD THAT - The delay of 530 days has been explained on wholly vague and generic grounds of - (i) shortage of manpower and; (ii) excess work. In the affidavit of the assessing officer, besides the above, it was further stated, the senior assistant had been assigned B.L.O. duty, resulting in the delay. Neither the application nor the affidavit bring out necessary facts pertaining to shortage of manpower claimed or the excess of work claimed. Then, the date of election and date of assignment of duty of the senior assistant has also not been disclosed. In any case, in the context of delay of 530 days, it is wholly unacceptable that such delay could have been caused owing to conduct of election or assignment on the election duty to certain officials. That explanation is inherently inadequate. The nature of explanation remains ever relevant and primary for consideration of the Court. It must inspire confidence as to truthfulness and completeness as to the delay sought to be explained. Only then, the Court may act and condone the delay. Where however, as in the instant case, that explanation is found to be lacking in particulars and substance as also intent, the Court may never act on the same. The law in that regard is fairly well settled. The Supreme Court in Postmaster General Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. Anr., 2012 (4) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT , has held The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. 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. Seen in that light, the explanation furnished by the revenue was neither bona fide nor it appears to be otherwise sufficient or such as may have been relied by the Tribunal to condone the delay of 530 days. The present revision is allowed. Question of law, framed above, is answered in the negative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Condonation of delay in filing appeal before Tribunal.

Analysis:
The case involved a revision filed against an order passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, seeking condonation of a 530-day delay in filing the appeal by the revenue. The primary question of law was whether the Tribunal was legally justified in condoning such a significant delay, contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in a specific case. The explanation provided for the delay was based on vague and generic grounds of manpower shortage and excess work. The affidavit of the assessing officer lacked necessary details regarding the shortage of manpower or the excess work claimed, making the explanation inherently inadequate.

The Court emphasized that while a day-to-day explanation of the delay is not required, the explanation provided must be genuine, inspiring confidence in its truthfulness and completeness. The explanation should also establish the proximity of the reason to the delay. Merely stating vague and generic facts without substantiating details may not warrant the Court's discretion to condone the delay. The Supreme Court's precedent highlighted the importance of a plausible and acceptable explanation for delay, especially for government bodies, emphasizing diligence and commitment in performing duties.

In this case, the Court found the revenue's explanation for the delay neither bona fide nor sufficient to justify the condonation of the 530-day delay. Consequently, the revision was allowed, answering the question of law in favor of the assessee and against the revenue. The judgment underscored the significance of providing a genuine and detailed explanation for delays in legal proceedings, especially when seeking condonation of significant delays, to ensure fairness and adherence to legal principles.