9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 941X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsel appearing for the Appellants that the very scheme in question being digitally handled, there is no scope for human intervention and therefore, the inadvertent error attributable to the private Respondent, regardless of his intent cannot be rectified, appears to be too farfetched an argument. In all human institutions whether humanly handled or machine handled, the errors are bound to occur and they need to be rectified, in the absence of law to the contrary. Otherwise, innocuous errors would perpetuate to the disadvantage of citizens, which a Welfare State like ours cannot justify. Further, it is not notified any rule that prescribes some limitation period that does not admit condonation of delay. This Appeal being devoid of merits is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent to this order. 2. Learned Panel Counsel appearing for the Appellant-Revenue vehemently argues that the learned Single Judge ignored the Board Circular No. 36/2010 dated 23.09.2020 which governed conversion of Shipping Bills from one scheme to another and also the prescription of limitation period. Learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the private Respondent opposes the Appeal making submission in justification of the impugned Judgement and the reasons on which it has been structured. He adds that the learned Single Judge has framed the impugned Judgement keeping in view decisions of two High Courts which have attained finality and that subsequently two more High Courts also have taken the same view on the question involved. 3. Having heard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned Single Judge in the impugned Judgment does not merit interference. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned Judgment, we decline indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the reasoning occurring at para 15 of the impugned Judgment which has the following text: Further, it undisputed that the petitioner, but for the error in making a choice of entering 'N' over 'Y', would be entitled for the benefit of the MESI Scheme. It would be difficult to believe that the petitioner, even if entitled for MESI benefit, would have chosen to give up the benefit unless it was for inadvertent error. These must also be relevant factors in assessing whether there is a bonafide and inadverte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Constitution of India. Much is not necessary to deliberate. 6. The vehement contention of learned Panel Counsel appearing for the Appellants that the very scheme in question being digitally handled, there is no scope for human intervention and therefore, the inadvertent error attributable to the private Respondent, regardless of his intent cannot be rectified, appears to be too farfetched an argument. In all human institutions whether humanly handled or machine handled, the errors are bound to occur and they need to be rectified, in the absence of law to the contrary. Otherwise, innocuous errors would perpetuate to the disadvantage of citizens, which a Welfare State like ours cannot justify. Further, we have not been notified any rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
