2021 (7) TMI 532 - SCH - GST

Condonation of delay in filing SLP - proposal for filing the Special Leave Petition was sent after almost six months, and it took another three months to decide whether to file Special Leave Petition or not - lethargy on part of the revenue department - Waiver of interest - Regularization of the Petitioner s GSTR-3B for August, 2017 by bringing it in line with GSTR-1 furnished by the Petitioner - HELD THAT - We have repeatedly discouraged State Governments and public authorities in adopting an approach that they can walk in to the Supreme Court as and when they please ignoring the period of limitation prescribed by the Statutes, as if the Limitation statute does not apply to them. We have also categorized such kind of cases as certificate cases filed with the only object to obtain a quietus from the Supreme Court on the ground that nothing could be done because the highest Court has dismissed the appeal. The objective is to complete a mere formality and save the skin of the officers who may be in default in following the due process or may have done it deliberately. We have deprecated such practice and process and we do so again. We refuse to grant such certificates and if the Government/public authorities suffer losses, it is time when concerned officers responsible for the same, bear the consequences. Looking to the period of delay and the casual manner in which the application has been worded, we consider appropriate to impose costs on the petitioner(s) of ₹ 25,000/- for wastage of judicial time which has its own value and the same be deposited with the Supreme Court Advocates On Record Welfare Fund within four weeks - Special Leave Petition is dismissed as time barred.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing Special Leave Petition, imposition of costs for wastage of judicial time, casual approach of revenue department, refusal to grant certificates for quietus, accountability of officers responsible for delay.

Delay in filing Special Leave Petition:
The Supreme Court noted a significant delay in filing the Special Leave Petition, emphasizing that there was no reason to condone the delay. The judgment was pronounced on 14.11.2019, but the proposal for filing the petition was sent almost six months later on 20.05.2020, with another three months taken to decide on filing it on 25.08.2020. The Court criticized the lethargy of the revenue department in this regard, stating that such delays are no longer acceptable, especially with the advancements in computerization.

Imposition of costs for wastage of judicial time:
Due to the casual manner in which the petitioner approached the Court without any valid grounds for condonation of delay, the Court imposed costs of ?25,000 for the wastage of judicial time. The Court highlighted the value of judicial time and directed the amount to be deposited with the Supreme Court Advocates On Record Welfare Fund within four weeks. Additionally, the Court ordered the recovery of this amount from the officers responsible for the delay and mandated the filing of a certificate of recovery within the same timeframe.

Casual approach of revenue department:
The Court criticized the casual approach of the revenue department, stating that the petitioner had shown lethargy and incompetence without providing any substantial reasons for the delay. The Court expressed disapproval of State Governments and public authorities adopting an approach of ignoring limitation statutes, emphasizing that the Limitation statute applies to them as well. The Court referred to previous judgments discouraging such practices and highlighted the need for accountability and adherence to legal procedures.

Refusal to grant certificates for quietus:
The Court categorically refused to grant certificates in what it termed as "certificate cases" where parties seek a quietus from the Supreme Court to avoid further action. The Court condemned this practice, emphasizing that if Government or public authorities suffer losses due to such delays, the responsible officers must bear the consequences. The Court underscored the need for accountability and the avoidance of mere formalities to protect defaulting officers.

Accountability of officers responsible for delay:
The Court emphasized the lack of accountability for officers responsible for delays, noting that mild warnings are insufficient consequences. The Court highlighted the need for officers to face consequences for their actions and directed the recovery of costs from the responsible officers. The Court stressed the importance of accountability and adherence to legal procedures to avoid delays and wastage of judicial time.