2014 (3) TMI 120

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rcial Tax, Varanasi sent the matter to Joint Commissioner, Commercial Tax (High Court Works), Allahabad vide letter dated 9.7.2013 with the request to file revision and Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Allahabad vide letter dated 25.7.2013 returned the file in original to Deputy Commissioner- State Representative, Commercial Tax, Varanasi to contact Standing Counsel. Then Deputy Commissioner-State Representative, Varanasi vide letter dated 19.9.2013 handed over documents to the deponent of affidavit to file revision and then this revision has been filed after more than three months even thereafter. 2. It is true that when State is a party, and file appeal/revision, as the case may be, with some delay, it may deserve some leverage for official hierarchical steps for permission etc. but a wholly unexplained, reckless and negligent approach of delay running in seven months and more cannot be overlooked particularly when it is not the case of applicants that they have taken any action against erring individual. 3. The expression "sufficient cause" in Section 5 of Act, 1963 has been held to receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally a del....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e in the process of their making. A certain amount of latitude is, therefore, not impermissible. It is rightly said that those who bear responsibility of Government must have 'a little play at the joints'. Due recognition of these limitations on Governmental functioning-of course, within a reasonable limits-is necessary if the judicial approach is not rendered unrealistic. It would, perhaps, be unfair and unrealistic to put Government and private parties on the same footing in all respects in such matters. Implicit in the very nature of Governmental functioning is procedural delay incidental to the decision making process. In the opinion of the High Court, the conduct of the law-officers of the Government placed the Government in a predicament and that it was one of these cases where the mala fides of the officers should not be imputed to Government." 6. In P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1998 SC 2276 the Court said: "Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribe and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds." 7. The Rules of limitation are....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nce of showing any sincere attempt on the part of suiter, would add to his negligence, and would be relevant factor going against him. 9. I need not to burden this judgment with a catena of decisions explaining and laying down as to what should be the approach of Court on construing "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of Act, 1963 and it would be suffice to refer a very few of them besides those already referred. 10. In Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari, AIR 1969 SC 575 a three Judge Bench of the Court said, that, unless want of bona fide of such inaction or negligence as would deprive a party of the protection of Section 5 is proved, the application must not be thrown out or any delay cannot be refused to be condoned. 11. The Privy Council in Brij Indar Singh Vs. Kanshi Ram ILR (1918) 45 Cal 94 observed that true guide for a court to exercise the discretion under Section 5 is whether the appellant acted with reasonable diligence in prosecuting the appeal. This principle still holds good inasmuch as the aforesaid decision of Privy Council as repeatedly been referred to, and, recently in State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok AO and others, AIR 2005 SC 2191. 12. In Vedabai @ Va....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....em as earnest money was not substantial so as to turn construction in question into a "work contract". In this regard, Tribunal has recorded following findings:-   16. The Tribunal has followed decision of Apex Court in M/s Assotech Realty Private Limited Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2007 NTN (Vol.34), - 67. In my view, this is not a case wherein substantial question of law is involved and has gone undecided on account of unsatisfactory delay by revisionist. 17. The application seeking condonation of delay is, therefore, rejected. ============= Document 1 "जब कि वर्तमान विचाराधीन मामले में व्यापारी द्वारा अपने रा- मटेरियल से लेबर कान्ट्रेक्ट कर अपनी जमीन पर फ्लेटस का निरà....