2019 (2) TMI 1098 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay of 110 days in filing revision - condonation sought on the ground that there was a confusion as to where the revision had to be filed - Held that - The instant petition is completely devoid of any merit - demand raised by the petitioner has already been dropped/cancelled by the Tribunal vide order dated 30.07.2015 therefore the petitioner ought not to have filed the instant petition. Despite knowledge of above said fact filing of instant petition by the petitioner his mala fide action with some ulterior motive and extraneous consideration best known to him amounts to grave harassment to the innocent tax payers - Filing of this petition amounts to gross abuse of the process of law inasmuch as after cancellation of demand raised by him from the respondent this petition was not maintainable. This petition is dismissed with exemplary costs of 2, 00, 000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) to be recovered from the erring officer from his own pocket.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to order of lower Revisional Court for condonation of delay in filing revision.

The petitioner filed a complaint against the respondents, which was dismissed after trial, discharging all accused-respondents. The petitioner then filed a revision along with an application for condonation of delay of 110 days, citing confusion on where to file the revision. The empanelled Advocate advised filing before the High Court, but later advised filing before the lower Revisional Court, causing the delay. The lower Revisional Court rejected the plea for condonation of delay, leading to the challenge in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The petitioner's counsel argued that the confusion between empanelled Advocates led to the delay, as one advised filing before the High Court and the other before the Sessions Court. However, the respondents' counsel contended that the petitioner's plea was misconceived and an attempt to misguide the courts. The respondents argued that there was no loss to the State Exchequer as the demand was dropped by the Tribunal. The court found the petition devoid of merit as the demand had already been cancelled by the Tribunal, making the petition unnecessary.

The court noted that there was no legal advice on record supporting the petitioner's claim to file the revision before the High Court. The petitioner's actions were deemed mala fide, with an ulterior motive, amounting to harassment of innocent taxpayers. The court condemned the petitioner's actions as an abuse of the legal process and warned against such behavior in the future. The court dismissed the petition with exemplary costs of ?2,00,000 to be recovered from the erring officer personally.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the need for caution in legal actions against citizens to prevent unnecessary expenses and harassment. The court ordered the recovery of costs from the erring officer and directed compliance within two months, failing which the matter would be brought before the court again.