9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 1488 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxCondonation of delay in filing revision - delay of eight years, eight months and twenty five days - Held that - the order of Tribunal was served upon the department on 09.07.2002 and it has been stated that the department has decided to file revision on 02.01.2003 i.e. after about six months from the date of service of order dated 09.07.2002. In the year 2009, the department came to know that no revision has been filed by the State Counsel. Therefore, the learned Chief Standing Counsel was requested to allot the files to some other State Counsel. However, no explanation from the year 2002 to 2009 has been given. In case files were allotted to the State Counsel in the year 2003, even then the revisionist must have contacted the State Counsel / office of the Chief Standing Counsel to know about the fate/ progress of the aforesaid revision, but nothing has been seriously done on the part of the revisionist with regard to filing of the revision. Therefore, the explanation given by the revisionist for condonation of delay cannot be said to be the sufficient reasons. Delay in filing instant revision cannot be condoned - application for condonation rejected - revision also dismissed being barred by the time.
Issues:
Delay in filing Trade Tax Revision, Application for condonation of delay, Challenge to judgment of U.P. Trade Tax Tribunal. Analysis: 1. Delay in Filing Trade Tax Revision: The Trade Tax Revision was filed after a delay of eight years, eight months, and twenty-five days. The revisionist claimed that the delay was due to the State Counsel's failure to prepare and file the revision despite being allotted the task. The State Counsel cited overburdening as the reason for the delay. However, the court noted that the revisionist did not take adequate steps to follow up on the progress of the revision filing from 2002 to 2009, which weakened the explanation for the delay. The court emphasized the importance of diligence in pursuing legal matters and found the delay inexcusable. 2. Application for Condonation of Delay: The revisionist sought condonation of the delay in filing the Trade Tax Revision, arguing that there was no malafide intention or deliberate delay. The revisionist relied on certain judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to support the argument for condonation. However, the court, after considering the submissions and explanations provided, found the reasons insufficient to justify condoning the significant delay of over eight years. The court emphasized the need for a valid and acceptable explanation for delays in legal proceedings. 3. Challenge to U.P. Trade Tax Tribunal's Judgment: The Trade Tax Revision challenged the judgment and order passed by the U.P. Trade Tax Tribunal, Full Bench, Lucknow, which had allowed the appeal of the respondent. The revisionist contended that the delay in filing the revision was not deliberate and sought condonation based on the circumstances surrounding the handling of the case by the State Counsel. However, the court, relying on relevant Supreme Court judgments, refused to condone the delay and dismissed the revision as time-barred. The court highlighted the importance of adhering to legal timelines and the consequences of inexcusable delays in legal proceedings. In conclusion, the High Court rejected the application for condonation of delay and dismissed the Trade Tax Revision, emphasizing the need for diligence and timely pursuit of legal remedies. The court cited relevant judgments to support its decision and underscored the significance of adhering to legal timelines without undue delays.
|
