9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 1041X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Officers concerned. From a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of application, it is apparent that no explanation whatsoever has been given from 31st August, 2010 till 21st June, 2010. Limitation period for filing revision against order dated 18th August, 2010 was 90 days and therefore revisionist has miserably failed afford any explanation for delay of two years in filing the revision. 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 re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. This Court in the case of Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lko. Vs. M/s. R.C. Sons (supra), has held as under:- 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties and having perused the reasons indicated in the application for condonation of delay it emerges that the order of the learned Tribunal is dated 23.04.2019. The revision itself has been filed after a delay of 163 days. The reasons have been indicated in paragraphs 3 to 8 of the said application by indicating that initially a proposal had been sent for filing of a revision petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. 28.Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Governmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r orders various Government Departments, State Governments and other public authorities that they must learn to file appeals in time and set their house in order so far as the Legal Department is concerned, more so as technology assists them. This appears to be falling on deaf ears despite costs having been imposed in a number of matters with the direction to recover it from the officers responsible for the delay as we are of the view that these officers must be made accountable. It has not had any salutary effect and that the present matter should have been brought up, really takes the cake! 6.The aforesaid itself shows the casual manner in which the petitioner has approached this Court without any cogent or plausible ground for condo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ground that nothing could be done because the highest Court has dismissed the appeal. The objective is to complete a mere formality and save the skin of the officers who may be in default in following the due process or may have done it deliberately. We have deprecated such practice and process and we do so again. We refuse to grant such certificates and if the Government/public authorities suffer losses, it is time when officers concerned responsible for the same, bear the consequences. The irony, emphasised by us repeatedly, is that no action is ever taken against the officers and if the Court pushes it, some mild warning is all that happens. 8. Looking to the gross negligence and the impunity with which the Union of India had ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e seen is as to whether any plausible reason has been indicated by the revisionist in filing the instant revisions. From a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of application, it is apparent that no explanation whatsoever has been given from 31st August, 2010 till 21st June, 2010. Limitation period for filing revision against order dated 18th August, 2010 was 90 days and therefore revisionist has miserably failed afford any explanation for delay of two years in filing the revision. 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 (supra) other than the lethargy and incompetence of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
