2023 (1) TMI 1041 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Condonation of delay of 163 days in filing revision - It is submitted that state entities are on separate footing from an individual and ample leeway is required to be granted to state entities since it involves betting at various stages - HELD THAT - The delay in filing revision has been considered by this Court in 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. From a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of application, it is apparent that no explanation whatsoever has been given from 31st August, 2010 till 21st June, 2010. Limitation period for filing revision against order dated 18th August, 2010 was 90 days and therefore revisionist has miserably failed afford any explanation for delay of two years in filing the revision. All these facts indicate the casual and cavalier attitude on the part of the department in filing of the revision belatedly, rather, as observed by the Apex Court in the case of Central Tibetan Schools 2021 (2) TMI 1214 - SUPREME COURT other than the lethargy and incompetence of the revisionist, there is nothing which has been brought on record to explain the delay. The revision itself is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing revision application, condonation of delay, casual and lethargic attitude of officials, state entities' leeway in filing applications, judgments cited to support delay explanation, relevance of previous court judgments on delay condonation.

Analysis:
The judgment by Hon'ble Manish Mathur, J. of the Allahabad High Court dealt with the issue of delay in filing a revision application. The revisionist sought condonation of a two-year delay in filing the revision, citing the receipt of the impugned judgment on 31st August, 2010, and subsequent approval from the law department in June 2012 before filing the revision in November 2012. The revisionist argued for leeway due to the involvement of state entities, supported by various judgments presented by the counsel.

The Court referenced a similar case involving delay in filing revisions due to the casual and lethargic attitude of officials, emphasizing the need for valid reasons for such delays. The Court highlighted the Apex Court's stance in the Postmaster General v. Living Media case, emphasizing that the law of limitation applies to all, including government bodies. The Court stressed that condonation of delay should not be an anticipated benefit for government departments, urging them to perform their duties diligently and commit to timely filings.

Furthermore, the judgment referred to the Central Tibetan Schools case, where the Apex Court criticized the casual approach of the Government in filing appeals, imposing special costs for delays. The Court reiterated that officers responsible for delays should be held accountable, emphasizing the importance of adhering to limitation statutes. The judgment underscored the need for government bodies to file appeals in time and avoid using the Supreme Court as a means to obtain a quietus without valid reasons for delay.

In analyzing the revisionist's case, the Court found no plausible explanation for the two-year delay in filing the revision. Despite citing judgments in support of their arguments, the revisionist failed to provide a valid justification for the delay. The Court considered the judgments of Living Media India Ltd, Central Tibetan Schools, and Volex Interconnect, which emphasized the need for cogent explanations for delay condonation. As no satisfactory reason was presented, the Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and subsequently the revision itself, aligning with the principles outlined in the aforementioned Apex Court judgments regarding delay condonation.