9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 801 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxSeeking condonation of delay in filing revision - whether any plausible reason has been indicated by the revisionist in filing the instant revisions? - HELD THAT - The delay in filing revision has been considered by this Court in Sales/Trade Tax Revision Defective No.6 of 2020 Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lko. Vs. M/s. R.C. Sons., Rakabganj, Lucknow 2022 (9) TMI 533 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT , with other connected defective revisions, decided on 7.9.2022, 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. The time limitation for filing of Revision against order impugned is 90 days from the date of communication of the order. Despite receiving impugned judgment and order on 25.07.2011, there is no explanation as to why the revision itself, was preferred even two years four months thereafter in December, 2013. 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. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion including the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Living Media India Ltd 2012 (4) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT , Central Tibetan Schools 2021 (2) TMI 1214 - SUPREME COURT Volex Interconnect 2021 (10) TMI 897 - SUPREME COURT , all judgments being of a latter date to the judgments cited by learned counsel for the revisionist including the judgment of Central Tibetan Schools being a three judges judgment, the Court does not find any plausible or cogent reason for condoning the delay. The application for condonation of delay and consequently the revision itself is dismissed.
Issues involved:
Application for amendment in the array of parties in the revision. Application for condonation of delay in filing revision against impugned judgment and order dated 10.08.2010 passed by Commercial Tax Tribunal, U.P. Lucknow. Amendment in the array of parties: The application sought amendment in the array of parties in the revision due to a typographical error in the name of the respondent. The Court allowed the application for amendment, and directed the incorporation of the necessary amendment in the memorandum of revision. Condonation of delay: The revisionist filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision against the judgment and order dated 10.08.2010. The delay was reported to be 2 years, one month, 26 days. The revisionist explained the delay citing the procedural requirements within the state entities and referred to previous judgments to support the request for condonation. The Court considered the delay and referred to a similar case where delay was attributed to the casual and lethargic attitude prevailing in the department. Citing judgments from the Apex Court, the Court emphasized the need for state entities to provide acceptable explanations for delays, highlighting the obligation of government bodies to perform their duties diligently. The Court dismissed the revisionist's application for condonation of delay, noting the lack of a plausible reason for the delay in filing the revision. Conclusion: The Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and subsequently dismissed the revision itself, citing the casual and cavalier attitude of the department in filing the revision belatedly. The Court found no cogent reason to condone the delay, considering the judgments of the Apex Court emphasizing the need for accountability and diligence in filing appeals within the prescribed time limits.
|
