2025 (1) TMI 1203 - HC - VAT / Sales Tax

Condonation of delay of 205 days in filing a revision application under Section 28(2) of the Uttar Pradesh VAT Act - sufficient cause for delay present or not - HELD THAT - The record shows that the limitation for filing the revision was up to 23.09.2023 but the matter was presented for seeking permission for filing the revision before the legal committee on 18.10.2023 to which no proper explanation has been submitted and even after the receipt of the permission for filing of the revision on 20.11.2023 the revision has not been filed immediately without any further delay. In the application various dates have been mentioned but the copy of the letters have been annexed surprisingly for the first time in the rejoinder affidavit trying to justify the delay. However the emphasis has been made that the officers were busy in finalizing the proceedings of Assessment Years 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 but no proper explanation for day to day delay was submitted after getting the permission from the legal committee for filing the revision in October 2023. This Court in the case of STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS VERSUS ARPITA SHUKLA AND 2 OTHERS 2025 (1) TMI 1091 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT . has not condoned the delay of 179 days. It was held in the case that The affidavit which has been filed does not give sufficient cause for the delay of 179 days in filing the appeal inasmuch as there are large gaps in affidavit wherein the period spent between 22.5.2024 till 13.9.2024 has nowhere been explained/adverted to despite as noticed hereinbefore the fact that the Court had granted only three months for the compliance. The manner in which the direction including time line as indicated by the Court has been taken and thereafter also the proceedings of the matter at snail pace cannot be countenanced in a case wherein the direction by the Court only pertains to reconsideration of the matter by the appellants. Conclusion - The reasons provided by the revisionist were insufficient to justify the delay. As a result the delay condonation application was dismissed leading to the dismissal of the revision application itself. The instant revision fails as no proper explanation has been submitted for condoning the delay in filing the instant revision hence the delay condonation application is rejected.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal question in this judgment revolves around whether the delay of 205 days in filing a revision application under Section 28(2) of the Uttar Pradesh VAT Act should be condoned. The court must determine if the reasons provided for the delay constitute 'sufficient cause' under the legal framework for condonation of delay.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents

The legal framework for condonation of delay is primarily governed by the principles established under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which allows for the extension of the prescribed period if 'sufficient cause' is shown. The court considered various precedents, including decisions from the Supreme Court and other High Courts, which emphasize that condonation of delay is an exception rather than a rule and requires a reasonable and acceptable explanation.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning

The court scrutinized the reasons provided by the revisionist for the delay, which included the engagement of officers in other proceedings and procedural red-tape. The court noted that the revisionist failed to provide a day-to-day explanation for the delay, particularly after receiving permission from the legal committee to file the revision.

Key Evidence and Findings

The revisionist submitted an affidavit citing the officers' engagement in finalizing proceedings for other assessment years as the primary reason for the delay. However, the court found that no documentary evidence was provided to substantiate these claims. The court also observed that the letters justifying the delay were annexed only in the rejoinder affidavit, indicating an attempt to justify the delay post-facto.

Application of Law to Facts

The court applied the principles of the Limitation Act and relevant precedents to the facts of the case. It emphasized that the reasons provided by the revisionist did not meet the threshold of 'sufficient cause' as they lacked specificity and documentary support. The court highlighted the absence of a proper explanation for the delay, particularly after the receipt of permission to file the revision.

Treatment of Competing Arguments

The respondent's counsel argued that the revisionist failed to provide any documentary evidence to support the delay condonation application and that the delay was not adequately explained. The court found these arguments persuasive, noting the lack of a detailed explanation for the delay and the absence of supporting documents.

Conclusions

The court concluded that the revisionist did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the 205-day delay in filing the revision application. Consequently, the court rejected the delay condonation application.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning

The court emphasized: "Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few."

Core Principles Established

The judgment reinforces the principle that government departments are under a special obligation to perform their duties with diligence and commitment. It reiterates that a mere procedural delay does not constitute 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay.

Final Determinations on Each Issue

The court determined that the reasons provided by the revisionist were insufficient to justify the delay. As a result, the delay condonation application was dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the revision application itself.

In conclusion, the court's decision underscores the importance of providing a detailed and documented explanation for delays in legal proceedings, particularly for government entities seeking condonation of delay. The judgment serves as a reminder that the principles of diligence and accountability apply uniformly, regardless of the party involved.