9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 362X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e adopted; particularly considering the inordinate delay in preferring this application. Only because the applicant is the State, it cannot be absolved of its responsibility to fulfil the mandate of law. Even if day today explanation is not desired, for a long period after the sanction of Finance Department also, nothing emerges on record to indicate due care or diligence to satisfy the requirement of explaining sufficiency of cause. - Condonation denied. - Civil Application No. 63 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 15-2-2013 - AKIL KURESHI AND SONIA GOKANI, JJ. ORDER:- The order of the court was made by MS. SONIA GOKANI J.- This is an application preferred for condonation of delay of 1360 days in filing the present tax appeal challenging the order dated January 21, 2009 passed in Second Appeal No. 501 of 2008 passed by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad ( Tribunal , for short). It is pleaded in the application by the applicant-State, thus: The applicant submits that the applicant had received the certified copy of the impugned judgment on February 12, 2009 and thereafter the proposal was sent to the Finance Department on January 2, 2010 for challenging the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t are lost for such defaults, no person is individually affected; but what, in the ultimate analysis, suffers is public interest. The decisions of the Government are collective and institutional decisions and do not share the characteristics of decisions of private individuals. ... Therefore, in assessing what, in a particular case, constitutes 'sufficient cause' for purposes of section 5 of the Limitation Act, it might, perhaps, be somewhat unrealistic to exclude from the considerations that go into the judicial verdict, these factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the Government. Governmental decisions are proverbially slow encumbered, as they are, by a considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process of their making. A certain amount of latitude is, therefore, not impermissible. It is rightly said that those who bear responsibility of Government must have a 'little play at the joints'. Due recognition of these limitations on Governmental functioning-of course, within a reasonable limitis necessary if the judicial approach is not rendered unrealistic. It would, perhaps, be unfair and unrealistic to put Government and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to jettison the substantial law of limitation. In the words of the apex court: 26. We are at a loss to fathom any logic or rationale, which could have impelled the High Court to condone the delay after holding the same to be unjustifiable. The concepts such as 'liberal approach', 'justice oriented approach', 'substantial justice' cannot be employed to jettison the substantial law of limitation, especially, in cases where the court concludes that there is no justification for the delay. In our opinion, the approach adopted by the High Court tends to show the absence of judicial balance and restraint, which a judge is required to maintain whilst adjudicating any lis between the parties. We are rather pained to notice that in this case, not being satisfied with the use of mere intemperate language, the High Court resorted to blatant sarcasms. The use of unduly strong intemperate or extravagant language in a judgment has been repeatedly disapproved by this court in a number of cases. Whilst considering applications for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the courts do not enjoy unlimited and unbridled discretionary powers. All discr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of a statute, including every word, have to be given full effect, keeping the legislative intent in mind, in order to ensure that the projected object is achieved. In other words, no provisions can be treated to have been enacted purposelessly. Furthermore, it is also a well-settled canon of interpretative jurisprudence that the court should not give such an interpretation to provisions which would render the provision ineffective or odious. Once the Legislature has enacted the provisions of Order 22, with particular reference to rule 9, and the provisions of the Limitation Act are applied to the entertainment of such an application, all these provisions have to be given their true and correct meaning and must be applied wherever called for. If we accept the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the applicant that the court should take a very liberal approach and interpret these provisions (Order 22, rule 9 of the CPC and section 5 of the Limitation Act) in such a manner and so liberally, irrespective of the period of delay, it would amount to practically rendering all these provisions redundant and inoperative. Such approach or interpretation would hardly be permissibl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. . . From the explanation rendered by the applicant, it can be noted that the same is in general terms. The Department appears to have sent a proposal to the Finance Department, which had approved it on May 3, 2010 and after the same was received back along with necessary papers and orders permitting the office of the Government Pleader to file tax appeal, it appears that the tax appeal which was to be filed within the period of limitation prescribed under the law, came to be filed after a huge delay of 1,360 days. What is stated for explaining such delay is that due to Government administrative mechanism, within the statutory time period, tax appeal could not be filed. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
