Court Dismisses Review Request; Original Order Stands, 486-Day Filing Delay Excused.

The court allowed the condonation of a 486-day delay in filing Misc. Civil Application No. 1 of 2020, finding the delay sufficiently explained, with no order as to costs. However, the application for review of the order dated 21-1-2019 was dismissed. The court held that there was no mistake apparent on record regarding the show-cause notice being kept in the call book for 14 years, and the applicant's arguments lacked sufficient material justification. Consequently, the review application could not be entertained, and the original order remained unaffected.

---

---

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing Misc. Civil Application
2. Review of order dated 21-1-2019 regarding show-cause notice

Condonation of Delay:
The applicant sought condonation of delay of 486 days in filing Misc. Civil Application No. 1 of 2020 in Special Civil Application No. 7143 of 2018. The court considered the submissions and averments made in the memorandum of application, finding the delay sufficiently explained. Consequently, the application was allowed, and the delay was condoned, with no order as to costs.

Review of Order Regarding Show-Cause Notice:
In the application for review of the order dated 21-1-2019, the applicant-original respondent No. 2 requested the order be recalled. This request was based on the grounds that the show-cause notice had been kept in the call book for 14 years before being resurrected, leading to the order confirming the demand without considering the petitioner's written submissions. The court noted that keeping the show cause notice for an extended period and then reviving it without proper consideration infringed upon the principle of natural justice, rendering both the notice and the subsequent order vitiated.

The Learned Senior Standing Counsel argued that the court had erred in its observations regarding the show cause notice being in the call book for 14 years. It was clarified that the notice was never transferred to the call book by the Customs Commissioner, and any delay could have been due to various reasons. The court found no mistake apparent on record and noted that the applicant had not raised concerns about the show cause notice not being transferred to the call book during the previous proceedings. The court dismissed the application, stating that in the absence of material justifying the submissions made, the application could not be entertained.

This summary provides an overview of the judgment, highlighting the issues of condonation of delay and the review of the order concerning the show-cause notice. The court's decisions and reasoning regarding each issue are presented in a structured manner, preserving the legal terminology and significant details from the original text.

---