2019 (8) TMI 383 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay of 583 days in taking out this application - appeal dismissed for non-removal of the office objections on or before 2nd March, 2017 - HELD THAT - On facts we find, there is no explanation offered for delay in the affidavit for the period from 2nd March, 2017 to 30th June, 2017 when the GST was implemented. Thereafter also, there is no explanation offered as to when and how the Revenue realized that the office objection had remained to be removed in this appeal. The affidavits are casual. The explanation offered for the delay is movement of files amongst various officers. Moreover no particulars in case of this appeal are indicated - It is clear from the affidavits that the applicants have been negligent. In these facts, we see no reason to condone the delay. Notice of motion dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Delay of 583 days in filing application to set aside an order passed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules.

Analysis:
1. The motion sought to condone a delay of 583 days in filing an application to set aside an order dated 2nd February, 2017, which dismissed the applicant's appeal for non-removal of office objections by 2nd March, 2017.
2. The applicant attributed the delay to the implementation of the Goods and Services Tax Act (GST) from 1st July, 2017, stating that reorganization due to GST rollout and officer transfers caused the delay in filing the application.
3. The reasons for delay presented were the implementation of GST, movement of files among various officers, and the belief in having a strong case on merits.
4. The applicant's counsel argued that the delay should be condoned, citing a Supreme Court decision emphasizing that no litigant benefits from late filing of an appeal.
5. The respondent opposed the application, pointing out the lack of explanation for the delay during specific periods and highlighting that the implementation of GST did not halt all activities of the Revenue.
6. The court found the explanations in the affidavits unsatisfactory, noting the absence of a clear explanation for the delay during crucial periods and the casual nature of the affidavits.
7. Referring to the decision in Post Master General case, the court emphasized the need for a plausible and acceptable explanation for delay, especially in government matters, and highlighted that delay condonation should not be used as a benefit for government departments.
8. Ultimately, the court dismissed the Notice of Motion, concluding that the reasons provided for the delay were insufficient, indicating negligence on the part of the applicants, and emphasizing that the law of limitation applies to all, including government bodies.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, the court's assessment of the explanations for the delay, and the legal principles guiding the decision to dismiss the motion to condone the delay.