Condonation of substantial delay in tax litigation granted despite weak explanation, in the larger interest of justice.

A substantial delay in filing a Revenue motion to set aside a conditional order was examined against explanations of commissionerate restructuring, change of panel advocates, and alleged non-receipt of communications. The Court found the explanation weak and noted that office objections are recorded on the original file and should be tracked by counsel and the litigant; departmental inconvenience was not treated as a sufficient justification for prolonged inaction. Even so, the delay was condoned because the matter involved connected appeals and the Court considered condonation necessary in the larger interest of justice.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 776 days in filing the Revenue's motion to set aside the conditional order deserved condonation.

Analysis: The motion was supported by explanations based on restructuring of the Commissionerate, change of panel advocates, and alleged non-receipt or misdirection of communications. The Court found these explanations unsatisfactory and emphasised that office objections are recorded on the original file, that counsel and the litigant are expected to take note of them, and that departmental or administrative inconvenience is no justification for prolonged inaction. At the same time, the Court noted that some steps had been taken to regularise the matter and that the case involved a large number of connected appeals.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned and the motion was allowed in the larger interest of justice.

Ratio Decidendi: A substantial delay in a tax proceeding may still be condoned where the Court considers it necessary to advance the larger interest of justice, even though the explanation for the delay is weak and reflects departmental lapse.

---