9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 645X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r brevity, the 1994 Act ), to make a reference to the High Court on certain questions of law. The facts which are requisite to be stated are that for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1978-79 the assessee-petitioner was assessed to entry tax by the concerned assessing officer. Being dissatisfied with the order of assessment, the petitioner preferred the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner who by order dated March 24, 1998 rejected the appeal. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the assessee preferred the second appeal before the Board of Revenue. After constitution of the Appellate Board, the appeals were transferred to the Appellate Board. The Appellate Board by order dated May 28, 2005 rejected the appeals bearing registration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. Shrivastava, the learned senior counsel, that in the application under section 66 of the Act is appropriate and adequate reasons were ascribed but the exception has been taken to the facts and credence has not been given to the fact that letters sent by the advocate were misplaced. It is urged by him that the Board has taken an ultratechnical view whereas there has to be liberal approach as regards the entertainment of application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for the purpose of condonation of delay. Mr. Deepak Awasthy, learned Government Advocate, resisting the aforesaid submission contended that the Board has ascribed the adequate reasons while refusing the application for condonation of delay and this court should not exer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been considerable substantial time lag between preparation of papers and their submission. We, therefore, decide that the limitation for this application under section 70 of the Act cannot be extended since there are neither any extenuating circumstances nor a reasonable ground for doing so. The question that emanates for consideration is whether the Board is justified in refusing to condone the delay in filing the application. In this context, we may refer with profit to the decision rendered in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji [1987] 66 STC 228 (SC); AIR 1987 SC 1353 wherein their Lordships have held thus (at page 229 of STC): 3. The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. In G. Ramegowda, Major v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore AIR 1988 SC 897, a two-judge Bench of the apex court has expressed thus: The law of limitation is, no doubt, the same for a private citizen as for Governmental authoritie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but the State represents collective cause of the community. It is axiomatic that decisions are taken by officer/agencies proverbially at slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the file from table to table and keeping it on table for considerable time causing delay intentional or otherwise is a routine. Considerable delay of procedural red tape in the process of their making decision is a common feature. Therefore, certain amount of latitude is not impermissible. If the appeals brought by the State are lost for such default no person is individually affected but what in the ultimate analysis suffers, is public interest. The expression 'sufficient cause' should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justice-oriented approa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of filing of appeal but the fact remains that their Lordships have expressed that there has to be justice-oriented approach in the matter of condonation of delay. The court of law unless finds that the litigation is absolutely frivolous or is filed with the motive to procrastinate the proceeding it should adopt a liberal approach while dealing with the application for condonation of delay because the litigant comes to the court to get the lis to be adjudicated. The court would also duty-bound to deal with the factum of delay. To elaborate, if there is enormous delay and there is no acceptable explanation which would come in the realm of sufficient cause , needless to emphasise, the application for condonation of delay has to pave the path ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
