2022 (9) TMI 1335 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Condonation of delay of 584 days in filing revision - exclusion of COVID period i.e. from 15.03.2020 till 10.02.2021 as per decision in the case of IN RE COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION 2021 (3) TMI 497 - SC ORDER - satisfactory explanation for delay was given or not - HELD THAT - The delay is sought to be explained by contending that the order passed by the learned Tribunal was served on the revisionist on 09.04.2019 although a proposal for filing of the revision was sent on 28.10.2020 to the office of Additional Commissioner Grade-2, Commercial Tax, Lucknow and a letter was also forwarded on 06.11.2020 seeking permission and sanction for filing revision was received from the Law Department on 10.12.2020 yet despite best efforts the revision could only be filed on 10.02.2021. The delay is sought to be explained on the ground of inherited bureaucratic lackadaisical attitude imbibed with note-making, file pushing and passing on the buck ethos. The delay in filing revision has been considered by this Court in the case COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAX U.P. LKO. VERSUS M/S R.C. AND SONS RAKABGANJ LUCKNOW 2022 (9) TMI 533 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT , where the delay of 163 days was sought to be explained on the basis of the casual and lethargic attitude of the officials which prevails in the Department, on the part of the Officers concerned. In the instant case the delay is of 250 days even after ignoring the COVID period in terms of judgment of the Apex Court. Considering the aforesaid judgments in the case of M/s. R.C. Sons, and the delay in the instant case of 250 days even after ignoring the COVID period in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court and there being no plausible and cogent reasons for condoning the delay, the application for condonation of delay is rejected. Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Delay in filing revision due to COVID period, explanation for delay, bureaucratic attitude, condonation of delay, casual and lethargic attitude of officials, judgment of Supreme Court regarding limitation period, application for condonation of delay, dismissal of revision.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with the issue of delay in filing a revision due to the COVID period. The revisionist sought to ignore the COVID period based on a Supreme Court judgment regarding the extension of the limitation period. Despite the delay of 584 days, the revisionist argued that after excluding the COVID period, the delay would be only 250 days. The explanation for the delay included bureaucratic inefficiencies and a lackadaisical attitude prevalent in the department, leading to the delay in filing the revision.

The judgment referred to a previous case where a delay of 163 days was explained by citing casual and lethargic attitudes of officials in the department. However, the court emphasized that the delay in the present case, even after excluding the COVID period, was 250 days. The court cited the Supreme Court's stance on condoning delays caused by bureaucratic inefficiencies and emphasized the need for plausible and acceptable explanations for delays.

The court analyzed the reasons provided for the delay, noting a cavalier and casual attitude in filing the revision. Despite the file reaching the ultimate destination for drafting, it took more than four months to complete the revision, indicating a lack of diligence in meeting the statutory limitation period. The court referenced judgments by the Apex Court, including those in the cases of Living Media India Ltd, Central Tibetan Schools, and Volex Interconnect, highlighting the importance of valid reasons for condoning delays.

Ultimately, the court rejected the application for condonation of delay, citing the lack of plausible and cogent reasons for the delay. Considering the judgments referred to, including the case of M/s. R.C. & Sons, and the absence of valid explanations for the delay, the court dismissed the revision due to the rejection of the condonation of delay application.