9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... already initiated under Sections 73, 74 and 61 of the UPGST Act, 2017 for the Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 and therefore, the proposal could not be sent to the Deputy Commissioner & State Representative, State Tax Bench-4, Kanpur earlier than 20.01.2024. 5. He further submits that since the time limit for the disposal of the case relating to Assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 was fixed and therefore, due to overrise, the proposal could not be sent. 6. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the various letters from July 2023 to 21.02.2024, which was filed as RA-1 to RA-9 and submits that the delay in filing the instant revision is not intentional, rather bonafide. 7. He further submits that the delay of 205 days in filing the revision has properly been explained and the Court may be gracious to condone the same. 8. Rebutting to the said submission, Sri Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent submits that in support of delay condonation application, no documentary evidence has been brought on record. He further submits that the order impugned was received on 03.07.2023 and the last date to file was 23.09.2023, however, the rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passage of over four months, whereas in the order dated 22.5.2024 three months time was granted for complying with the direction, for the first time found it appropriate to seek opinion of the Chief Standing Counsel regarding filing of the appeal. As to what transpired after passing of the order dated 22.5.2024 till 11.9.2024, when the opinion was sought, no indication, whatsoever, has been made. The opinion was immediately tendered on 14.9.2024 by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel whereafter also the appeal has been filed on 13.12.2024, i.e., after three months from the date the opinion was tendered. The said period apparently has been consumed in seeking opinion first by the Secretary from the Special Secretary, Secondary Education and again by the Upper Secretary from the Special Secretary Secondary Education and once the permission was granted on 20.11.2024 also, about 25 days have been taken in filing the appeal. The affidavit, which has been filed, does not give sufficient cause for the delay of 179 days in filing the appeal inasmuch as there are large gaps in affidavit wherein the period spent between 22.5.2024 till 13.9.2024 has nowhere been explained/adverted to des ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Madhya Pradesh to look into the aspect of revamping the legal Department as it appears that the Department is unable to file appeals within any reasonable period of time much less within limitation. These kinds of excuses, as already recorded in the aforesaid order, are no more admissible in view of the judgment in Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. - (2012) 3 SCC 563. We have also expressed our concern that these kinds of the cases are only "certificate cases" to obtain a certificate of dismissal from the Supreme Court to put a quietus to the issue. The object is to save the skin of officers who may be in default. We have also recorded the irony of the situation where no action is taken against the officers who sit on these files and do nothing. Looking to the period of delay and the casual manner in which the application has been worded, the wastage of judicial time involved, we impose cost on the petitioner/State of Rs. 35,000/- to be deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee. The amount be deposited within four weeks. The amount be recovered from the officer(s) responsible for the delay in filing and s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasonable and objective manner. High Court should have exercised the discretion in a systematic and an informed manner. The liberal approach in considering sufficiency of cause for delay should not be allowed to override substantial law of limitation. The Court observed that the concepts such as 'liberal approach', 'justice-oriented approach' and 'substantial justice' cannot be employed to jettison the substantial law of limitation. 23. In Basawaraj and Anr. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer8, this Court held that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The expression 'sufficient cause' as occurring in Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fide is writ large. It was also observed that even though limitation may harshly affect rights of the parties but it has to be applied with all its rigour as prescribed under the statute as the courts have no choice but to apply the law as it stands and they have no power to condone the delay on equitable grounds. 26. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as aforesaid, and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
