9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated by the Hon ble Apex Court is very succinct and clear that while examining the applications for condonation of delay, some leeway should be given to the government bodies and agencies, however this does not imply condoning the inordinate and unexplained delays. Further in all the cases decided by the Hon ble Apex Court, as above the appellant government is against the private persons, none of the case is one where the Appellant is one government body and the respondent is the Central Government in a matter of taxation. Undoubtedly, Appellant here seeking condonation of delay is Thane Municipal Corporation, a government body constituted under Article 243 of the Constitution and the respondent is Central Government. When both Appellant and Respondent are Government and government body the above said decisions do not decide the issue. It is also found that huge demand of ₹ 46,17,13,528/- (Service Tax) + ₹ 46,17,13,528/- (Penalty)+ Interest has been made against the appellant even without receiving any reply or conducting an effective personal hearing in the matter. Appellant was nowhere aware of the completion of adjudication proceedings and the order passed agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oaded. Representatives of the Appellant visited the Thane GST Office/Dadar GST Office on numerous occasions for ascertaining procedure for filing appeal. 15.01.2019 to 10.03.2019 3. Since elections for Lok Sabha were declared and model code of conduct came into force, the concerned officials of the Appellant were assigned election duty. 10.03.2019 to 23.05.2019 4. After declaration of elections, identification and engaging a counsel for preparation and filing of appeal was initiated. 27.05.2019 to 20.08.2019 5. Email received from GST Department requesting for details of filing of appeal. (Copy of email annexed herewith as Exhibit B). 30.08.2019 6. Discussion and meeting held with Mr. Prasannan Namboodiri, Advocate for engaging him in the matter. 02.09.2019 19.09.2019 7. Proposal received from Mr. Prasannan Namboodiri, Advocate in respect to the subject matter. (Copy of email and proposal annexed herewith as Exhibit C C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... letter annexed herewith as Exhibit K). 07.01.2020 20. Date of filing of Appeal. 17.01.2020 4.0 We have considered the facts on records and as stated by both the sides during the course of arguments and also in the affidavit filed by the Appellants. Appellant counsel has referred to plethora of case laws wherein the courts have condoned the delay in filing the appeals. On the other hand learned Authorized representative to referred to various decisions where the condonation of delay has been refused. 5.0 In the case of State Of Haryana Vs Chandra Mani [2002 (143) E.L.T. 249 (S.C.)], Hon ble Apex Court has after considering a plethora of decision on the issue has held as follows: 3.Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, the Act ) extends prescribed period of limitation in filing an application or an appeal except under the provisions of Order 21 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, the Code ) and gives power to the Court to admit the appeal or application after the prescribed period. The only condition is that the applicant/appellant satisfies the Court that he had sufficien ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Milavi Devi v. Dina Nath - 1982 (3) SCC 366, it was held that the appellant had sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. This Court under Art. 136 can reassess the ground and in appropriate case set aside the order made by the High Court or the Tribunal and remit the matter for hearing on merits. It was accordingly allowed, delay was condoned and case was remitted for decision on merits. 7.In O.P. Kathpalia v. Lakhmir Singh (dead) - 1984 (4) SCC 66, a Bench of three Judges had held that if the refusal to condone the delay results in grave miscarriage of justice, it would be a ground to condone the delay. Delay was accordingly condoned. In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji - 1987 (2) SCC 107, a Bench of two Judges considered the question of the limitation in an appeal filed by the State and held that Section 5 was enacted in order to enable the Court to do substantial justice to the parties by disposing of matters on merits. The expression sufficient cause is adequately elastic to enable the Court to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of the justice - that being the life-purpose for the exist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se on technicalities of delay in presenting the appeal. Delay was accordingly condoned, the order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the High Court for disposal on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. In Smt. Prabha v. Ram Parkash Kalra, (1987) Supp SCC 338, this Court had held that the Court should not adopt an injustice-oriented approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. The appeal was allowed, the delay was condoned and the matter was remitted for expeditious disposal in accordance with law. 9.In G. Ramegowda, Major v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore - 1988 (2) SCC 142, it was held that no general principle saving the party from all mistakes of its Counsel could be laid. The expression sufficient cause must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally delays in preferring the appeals are required to be condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of delay. In litigations to which Government is a party, there is yet another aspect which, perhaps, cannot be ignored. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ari Singh v. Union of India - 1993 (1) SCC 572, it was held that it is not at all a fit case where in the anxiety to render justice to a party so that a just cause is not defeated, a pragmatic view should be taken by the Court in considering sufficient cause for condonation of the delay under Section 5. It was held that when the party has come with a false plea to get rid of the bar of limitation, the Court should not encourage such person by condoning the delay and result in the bar of limitation pleaded by the opposite party. This Court, therefore, refused to condone the delay in favour of the party who came forward with false plea. In M/s. Shakambari Co. v. Union of India (1993) Supp (1) SCC 487, a Bench of three Judges held that delay caused in filing the appeal due to fluctuation in laying down the law was held to be a sufficient cause and delay of 14 days was condoned. In Ram Kishan v. U.P. State Roadways Transport Corpn., (1994) Supp (2) SCC 507, this Court had held that although the story put forward by the applicant for not filing the application for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act within the period of limitation was not found convincing but keeping in view the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ernment at appropriate level should constitute legal cells to examine the cases whether any legal principles are involved for decision by the Courts or whether cases require adjustment and should authorise the officers take a decision or give appropriate permission for settlement. In the event of decision to file appeal needed prompt action should be pursued by the officer responsible to file the appeal and he should be made personally responsible for lapses, if any. Equally, the State cannot be put on the same footing as an individual. The individual would always be quick in taking the decision whether he would pursue the remedy by way of an appeal or application since he is a person legally injured while State is an impersonal machinery working through its officers or servants. Considered from the perspective, it must be held that the delay of 109 days in this case has been explained and that it is a fit case for condonation of the delay. 12.On the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case for condoning the delay. The delay is accordingly condoned. The High Court is requested to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay. 7.0 This decision of was followed by the Apex Court in case of Amar Nath Yadav [2014 (302) ELT 26 (SC)] referred to by the learned Authorized representative while arguing the application for condonation of delay. 8.0 Recently Hon ble Supreme Court has in case of The State of Madhya Pradesh vs Bherulal vide order dated 15.10.2020 in IA No.62372/2020-Condonation Of Delay in Filing in Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No.9217 OF 2020 has held as follow: 3. No doubt, some leeway is given for the Government inefficiencies but the sad part is that the authorities keep on relying on judicial pronouncements for a period of time when technology had not advanced and a greater leeway was given to the Government (Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag Anr vs. Mst. Katiji Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107). This position is more than elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. Anr. (2012) 3 SCC 563 where the Court observed as under: Defect 13 Appeal Diary No.850982020 12) It is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vailability of the documents and the process of arranging the documents . In paragraph 4 a reference has been made to bureaucratic process works, it is inadvertent that delay occurs . 5. A preposterous proposition is sought to be propounded that if there is some merit in the case, the period of delay is to be given a go-by. If a case is good on merits, it will succeed in any case. It is really a bar of limitation which can even shut out good cases. This does not, of course, take away the jurisdiction of the Court in an appropriate case to condone the delay. 6. We are also of the view that the aforesaid approach is being adopted in what we have categorized earlier as certificate cases . The object appears to be to obtain a certificate of dismissal from the Supreme Court to put a quietus to the issue and thus, say that nothing could be done because the highest Court has dismissed the appeal. It is to complete this formality and save the skin of officers who may be at default that such a process is followed. We have on earlier occasions also strongly deprecated such a practice and process. There seems to be no improvement. The purpose of coming to this Court is not to ob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, personal hearing in the matter was fixed on 27.06.2018, and communicated to the noticee vide letter dated 11.06.2018. The noticee were also asked to make written submissions, if any during the course of personal hearing. The communication was sent by Speed Post tracking number EM 137655327 IN. As per details available on India Post website www.indiapost.gov.in the consignment i.e. the letter was delivered to the noticee on 21.06.2018 at 16.45.56 Hrs. The noticee, however, did not file any reply or request for extension of personal hearing. 4.2 Therefore, another date for personal hearing was fixed to be conducted on 25.07.2018, and communicated to the noticee by Speed Post tracking number EM 137655335 IN. As per details available on India Post website www.indiapost.gov.in the consignment i.e. the letter was delivered to the noticee on 26.06.2018 at 18.28.21 Hrs. However, the noticee neither appeared for the personal hearing nor made any written communication for extension of personal hearing. 4.3 Another date for personal hearing to be conducted on 09.08.2018 was sent to the noticee by Speed Post on 27.07.2018 and communicated to the noticee by Speed Post tracking n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
