2017 (5) TMI 345 - HC - Service Tax

Court allows condonation of delay in compliance with office objections, emphasizes timely advocacy duties

The court decided to condone the delay in compliance with office objections by the Revenue and allowed the motion to set aside the conditional order, ... Validity of notice of motion - delay of 776 days in filing the motion - condonation of delay - non-removal of office objections - change in panel of advocates - Held that: - the advocates appearing for the Revenue, are first the officers of the court. They ought not to dance to the tune of the senior level officials and particularly the Service Tax Commissionerate in Pune. If any advice and opinion tendered is being misconstrued and used against them, then, it is for them to decide whether to continue and render their service to the Revenue - this Commissioner ought to know that there cannot be any justification for not visiting the Registry and seeking inspection of the files, particularly in matters involving a huge tax liability but rely only on some communication from the advocate. There are 82 matters, which are disposed of by a common order by the Registry. In all of them, no compliance with the procedural rules was made. If tomorrow all the Commissionerates and Commissioners or high ranking officials place before this court such causes or reasons for condoning the erroneous delay, they should be reminded at once that they are not special litigants. The Government is not a special litigant nor the Tax Department or the Revenue. The delay is condoned in the larger interest of justice and because some steps have been taken to set right the state of affairs, the notice of motion is allowed. Issues Involved:Setting aside a conditional order passed invoking Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules due to delay in compliance with office objections by the Revenue.Detailed Analysis:1. Conditional Order Invoked: The conditional order was passed on 18th September, 2014 in several appeals invoking Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, directing the appellant or their advocate to remove office objections failing which the appeal would stand rejected.2. Delay in Filing Motion: The Revenue filed a motion to set aside the conditional order after a delay of 776 days. The initial affidavit filed by the Revenue cited the change in the panel of advocates representing the Revenue as the reason for not removing the office objections promptly.3. Restructuring of Commissionerate: A restructuring of the Pune-III Commissionerate led to a delay in receiving communications from the Legal Coordination Cell, resulting in the Pune Service Tax Commissionerate being unaware of the nature of office objections and the conditional order.4. Additional Affidavit: An additional affidavit was tendered by the appellant's counsel, supported by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Pune, explaining the restructuring and the delay in filing the notice of motion due to the directions of the new panel counsel.5. Advocate's Duty: The court emphasized that advocates representing the Revenue are officers of the court and must promptly comply with office objections listed on the original files. The duty to follow up on the matter and ensure compliance rests with the appellant's advocate.6. Judicial Caution: The court cautioned the Revenue and its officers against justifying lapses in compliance with procedural rules, emphasizing that all litigants, including the government and tax departments, are subject to the same standards and procedures.7. Condonation of Delay: Despite the lapses and delays, the court decided to condone the delay in the interest of justice due to some efforts made to rectify the situation. The notice of motion to set aside the conditional order was allowed without any costs imposed.By analyzing the issues involved and the court's detailed reasoning, it is evident that the judgment focused on the importance of timely compliance with procedural rules, the responsibilities of advocates representing the Revenue, and the need for all litigants to adhere to the same standards of diligence and accountability in legal proceedings.