2022 (9) TMI 533 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Condonation of delay of 163 days, 207 days 197 days in filing appeal - availability of statutory appellate remedy - time limitation - HELD THAT - Having perused the reasons indicated in the application for condonation of delay it emerges that the order of the learned Tribunal is dated 23.04.2019. The revision itself has been filed after a delay of 163 days. The reasons have been indicated in paragraphs 3 to 8 of the said application by indicating that initially a proposal had been sent for filing of a revision petition and thereafter the documents were sent. Later, the permission was sought for filing of revision which was received from the law department vide sanction letter dated 15.07.2019 and a request subsequently was made in July, 2019 to the office of the learned Chief Standing counsel, High Court, Lucknow for filing of a revision. The file was allotted for drafting after a period of almost one month and it took the learned Standing counsel a period of almost four and half months to file the revision and hence the delayed filing of revision. A perusal of paragraphs 3 to 8 of the application of condonation of delay would indicate that a very cavalier and casual attitude has been shown by the revisionist in filing the instant revision inasmuch as file and papers/permissions have been shunted from one desk to the other. Even though the file has reached the ultimate destination for drafting of the revision i.e to the concerned learned counsel for drafting of the revision in August, 2019 yet it has taken more than four months for the revision to be drafted despite limitation period of three months being prescribed under the statute for filing of a revision. The application for condonation of delay in all the aforesaid revisions having been rejected, the revisions are dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing sales/trade tax revisions.

Analysis:
The judgment dealt with condonation of delay in filing sales/trade tax revisions. The revisions were filed with delays of 163 days, 207 days, and 197 days, respectively. The revisionist sought condonation of delay, citing bureaucratic delays and red-tapism prevalent in departments. The revisionist argued that the law of limitation aims to provide finality to proceedings, not to eliminate statutory appellate remedies. The revisionist relied on various Apex Court judgments supporting condonation of delay due to bureaucratic delays. On the contrary, the respondent's counsel argued against condonation, citing recent Apex Court judgments dismissing delays and warning departments against casual approaches.

The Court examined the reasons for delay provided by the revisionist. It was noted that the revisions were filed after significant delays despite efforts made within the limitation period. The Court considered the delays caused by bureaucratic processes and noted the arguments presented by both parties. The Court extensively quoted the Apex Court's stance on condonation of delay, emphasizing that government departments must diligently perform their duties and not seek condonation as a routine benefit. The Court highlighted the need for acceptable explanations for delays and the obligation of government bodies to comply with limitations.

The Court referred to recent Apex Court judgments, including a three-judge judgment, which emphasized the need for government departments to file appeals in a timely manner and avoid casual approaches. The Court noted the casual and cavalier attitude displayed by the revisionist in filing the revisions belatedly. Despite the revisionist's arguments, the Court found no plausible reason to condone the delays. Consequently, the Court rejected the application for condonation of delay and dismissed all revisions due to the delays in filing. The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and avoiding casual approaches in legal proceedings.