2022 (9) TMI 734 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Significant Delay Leads to Dismissal of Revision Application

The High Court of Allahabad, in a judgment by Hon'ble Abdul Moin, rejected an Application for Condonation of Delay in filing a revision due to a ... Condonation of delay in filing the revision - delay of two years seven months and eight days for filing the revision - HELD THAT:- The delay in filing revision has been considered by this Court in the case COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAX U.P. LKO. VERSUS M/S R.C. AND SONS RAKABGANJ LUCKNOW [2022 (9) TMI 533 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], where the delay of 163 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. The delay in the instant case of two years seven months and eight days and there being no plausible and cogent reasons for condoning the delay, the application for condonation of delay is rejected - revision dismissed. Issues:Application for Condonation of Delay in filing the revisionAnalysis:The judgment by the High Court of Allahabad, delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J., pertained to the Application for Condonation of Delay in filing the revision. The Court noted a significant delay of two years, seven months, and eight days in filing the revision, despite the explanations provided by the revisionist. The Court considered previous cases, such as Sales/Trade Tax Revision Defective No.6 of 2020, where delays were attributed to bureaucratic inefficiencies and casual attitudes prevailing in the department. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory limitations and discouraged condoning delays without valid justifications.In the judgment, the Court cited the case of M/s. R.C. & Sons, where delays in filing revisions were attributed to bureaucratic lethargy and inefficiencies. The Court highlighted the necessity for government bodies to perform their duties diligently and not rely on bureaucratic red tape as an excuse for delays. The judgment referenced the Apex Court's stance on condoning delays, emphasizing that government departments must provide reasonable and acceptable explanations for delays and cannot expect leniency based on outdated bureaucratic practices.Furthermore, the judgment referenced the case of Central Tibetan Schools, where the Supreme Court imposed special costs on the Union of India for delays in filing appeals, emphasizing the need for accountability within government departments. The Court reiterated that delays in legal proceedings cannot be condoned without valid and justifiable reasons, especially when government bodies are involved. The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to statutory limitations and ensuring timely filing of appeals and revisions.Ultimately, the Court rejected the Application for Condonation of Delay in the instant case due to the significant delay of two years, seven months, and eight days, coupled with the lack of plausible and cogent reasons for the delay. The judgment highlighted the need for government departments to prioritize efficiency and accountability in legal proceedings, rather than relying on outdated bureaucratic practices as excuses for delays. Consequently, the revision was dismissed following the rejection of the condonation of delay application.