9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h as on expiry of the period of limitation, a valuable right has accrued in favour of the respondent before us on the subject-matter of the present litigation. - Following decision of Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd. and Another reported in [2012 (4) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Condonation denied. - CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 83, 101 & 162 OF 2014 MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 127, 145 & 146 OF 2014 TAX APPEAL NOS. 1153 & 1118 OF 2011 & 285 OF 2012 - - - Dated:- 31-7-2014 - BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, AND J.B. PARDIWALA, JJ. R.J. Oza, Sr. Standing Counsel and Hriday Buch, Advocate for the Applicant. Devan Parikh, P.R. Nanavati, Paresh M. Dave and Ms. Dilbur, Contractor, Advocates for the Respondent. ORDER Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.-All these Civil Applications were heard together as the grounds for condonation of delay in filing the various Misc. Civil Applications for review are virtually the same. We, however, take the case of Civil Application No.162 of 2014 as the lead matter. 2. By these applications, the applicant/Union of India, has prayed for condonation of delay of 417 days in filing the Misc. Civil Applications for re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 011, the applicant filed Special Leave to Appeal being (Civil) CC No.13647 of 2013 in the Supreme Court of India. The said petition was placed for hearing before the Supreme Court on 8th August 2013 and the learned Additional Solicitor General of India, after making submissions for a while, made a request that the petitioner might be permitted to withdraw the Special Leave Petition with liberty to seek review of the judgment under challenge. According to the applicant, the Supreme Court of India, while accepting such request, disposed of the Special Leave Petition as withdrawn with liberty in terms of prayer made by the learned Additional Solicitor General. The Supreme Court, however, made it clear that liberty given by the Supreme Court should not be construed as a mandate to the High Court to entertain and allow the review petition and, if any such petition was filed, the High Court should decide the same on its merit. 3.6 The applicants contend that certified copy of the order passed by the Supreme Court in respect of SLP (C) No. CC No.13647 of 2013 in the case of CCE v. Vitrag Silk Mills (P.) Ltd. was received by the office of the applicant on 20th September 2013 and thereaf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te, wherein the authority has informed that in the matter of Tax Appeal No.1153 of 2011 and others in which this High Court vide CAV judgment dated 28th September 2012 has decided 29 Tax Appeals, the Department has taken decision to file SLP in only nine Tax Appeals wherein amount involved is ₹ 25 lakh or more. By pointing out the above information, the respondent contends that, therefore, there was no justification of the statement made in the applications for condonation of delay that proposal for filing appeal even in respect of appeals where valuation is less than ₹ 25 lakh was pending. The respondent, in substance, contends that the common judgment dated 28th September 2012 in respect of those Tax Appeals where valuation was less than ₹ 25 lakh, under the existing law, could not be challenged in the Supreme Court and thus, if there was any decision taken to file application for review, they should have taken such decision within 30 days from the date of passing of such judgment and there was no justification of waiting till August 2013 when another Special Leave Application filed by the applicant against the order of a Division Bench of this court in an appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at AIR 1981 SC 733, sufficient cause for the purpose of condonation of delay must be referable to period prior to expiry of limitation and any event or circumstance arising after the expiry of limitation cannot constitute such sufficient cause. The following observations in the above matter are quoted below: Now, it is true that a party is entitled to wait until the last day of limitation for filing an appeal. But when it allows limitation to expire and pleads sufficient cause for not filing the appeal earlier, the sufficient cause must establish that because of some event or circumstance arising before limitation expired it was not possible to file the appeal within time. No event or circumstance arising after the expiry of limitation can constitute such sufficient cause. There may be events or circumstances subsequent to the expiry of limitation which may further delay the filing of the appeal. But that the limitation has been allowed to expire without the appeal being filed must be traced to a cause arising within the period of limitation. In the present case, there was no such cause, and the High Court erred in condoning the delay. (Emphasis Supplied). 9. We may, at th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay. 10. On consideration of the entire materials on record and by applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the above two decisions, we find that the applicants have failed to prove sufficient cause for not filing the applications for review within the period of limitation. There was also no justification at the instance of any reasonable person, none other than Union of India to wait till the permission for withdrawal of application for Special Leave was permitted by the Supreme Court with liberty to file application for review in a different matter inasmuch as on expiry of the period of limitation, a valuable right has accrued in favour of the respondent before us on the subject-matter of the present litigation. 11. These applications are thus devoid of any merit and are, consequently, dismissed. 12. In view of dismissal of these applications, all the connected applications for review are also dismissed as bar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
