TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (9) TMI 907
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, the Commissioner, Sales Tax (respondent No. 1 herein) passed orders on February 21, 1997 under section 11 of the local Act directing the assessing authority to transfer the files of the petitioner to the Assistant Commissioner (Zone I) pertaining to the years 1979-80 to 1992-93 for causing of reassessment under section 24 and also for taking up penalty proceedings under section 56 of the local Act. The Assistant Commissioner (Zone I) was asked to dispose of these cases of reassessment expeditiously after following due process of law. On this direction the Assistant Commissioner issued notices dated July 1, 1997 for reassessment under section 24 for the years 1991-92 and 199293. The petitioner appeared in response to the reassessment notice. According to the petitioner, at that time it was not aware that the Commissioner had issued any orders under section 11 of the local Act on February 21, 1997. However, without completing the proceedings pursuant to the aforesaid notices dated July 1, 1997, fresh show-cause notices dated July 1, 1997 were issued proposing to suo motu revise the original assessment orders dated March 31, 1995 (in respect of the year 1991-92) and April 18, 199....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....kmen forcefully took over the office and factory premises and did not allow the management to have access to the building. When the liquidity of the petitioner deteriorated due to non-marketability of the products and general unrest in the employees, the creditors asked for their money and ultimately resorted to filing of winding up petition of the company. The winding up proceedings in C.P. 16/2007 titled DCM Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Pure Drinks (New Delhi) Ltd., are underway before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Workers who had taken over the possession of the office did not allow the management to take away the records from the office. It was in the presence of Mr. Justice P.K. Jain that some records were retrieved from the premises which was prior to the suo motu revision order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Report of Mr. Justice P.K. Jain is filed along with the petition in respect of this plea. It is further stated that while the aforesaid orders were passed by the Department, serious disputes were pending between the management of the petitioner and its employees which has not been disputed by the Department. It is also not disputed that on July 11, 2000 an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies of the revision orders were collected by Sh. S.K. Goel, the Junior Accounts Executive of the petitioner on July 31, 2000. On this basis the Tribunal opined that when the copies were collected by the authorized representative of the petitioner way back on July 31, 2000, the plea that it did not receive certified copies was incorrect. According to the petitioner, however, the petitioner came to know about the aforesaid fact of receipt of copies by Sh. S.K. Goel only during the course of hearing when the Department placed on record the acknowledgment of Sh. Goel having received those copies. It was also the plea of the petitioner that Sh. Goel had neither given the copies to the petitioner nor brought the said fact to the knowledge of the petitioner. It was also pleaded that even when the request for certified copies of the orders was made on September 26, 2002, the Department never reverted back saying that the copies of these orders had been obtained/collected by Sh. S.K. Goel. Even on December 28, 2005, when the certified true copies of these orders were given by the Department the originals of which were placed in the record of the Tribunal they did not bear the signatures of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dly not handing over the relevant papers to the petitioner. (d) The petitioner had been shifting its stand time and again with regard to the condonation of delay which had to be viewed adversely. In the initial application dated January 5, 2006 condonation of delay was sought on account of the fact that there was unrest and strike in the factory as a result whereof there was no access either for the managerial staff or to the workers into the factory and therefore, the petitioner was not in a position to know that any adverse order had been passed against them which could necessitate the appeals. However, in subsequent application dated January 25, 2007 supplementing the earlier application, altogether new ground was taken, namely, Sh. S.K. Goel, who had received the copies, kept the petitioner in dark. Yet again, another inconsistent stand was taken by the petitioner regarding supply of certified copy on December 28, 2005. We may state at the outset that no doubt, there was substantial delay in filing the appeals. The revisional orders passed in respect of the two assessment orders are dated July 11, 2000 and March 26, 2001 but the appeals were filed only on December 5, 2006. In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....na High Court, the petitioner took steps and applied for the certified copies. When we view the development in the aforesaid perspective, we find that though there may be some negligence on the part of the petitioner, it was not so culpable or serious warranting dismissal of applications for condonation of delay as the circumstances explained would furnish some justification for not approaching the Tribunal earlier. It would be of interest to note that proceedings in respect of assessment orders passed for various years had been reopened/revised and the petitioner had been pursuing the proceedings in respect of other assessment years. In fact, in respect of immediate previous assessment year, i.e., 1990-91 also, revision order was passed against which the petitioner had preferred appeal before the Tribunal in the year 2002-03. Said appeal was even allowed by the Tribunal vide orders dated December 8, 2005. When the petitioner could be vigilant in respect of that assessment year which was not only filed in time but successfully persued, there is no reason that the petitioner would not have filed the appeals in respect of years in question had it got the knowledge about the passing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h v. Ram Kishori Devi [1999] 9 SCC 112. Again, in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [2008] 228 ELT 162 (SC) delay of 883 days in filing the appeal to set aside decree was condoned by the Supreme Court accepting the plea that information was not provided by the advocate on passing of ex parte decree. While doing so, the court observed: "8. The appellant's conduct does not on the whole warrant to castigate him as an irresponsible litigant. What he did in defending the suit was not very much far from what a litigant would broadly do. Of course, it may be said that he should have been more vigilant by visiting his advocate at short intervals to check up the progress of the litigation. But during these days when everybody is fully occupied with his own avocation of life an omission to adopt such extra vigilance need not be used as a ground to depict him as a litigant not aware of his responsibilities, and to visit him with drastic consequences. 9.. It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This court has held that the words 'sufficient cause' under section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari AIR 1969 SC 575 and State of West Bengal v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality AIR 1972 SC 749. 13.. It must be remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy, the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time, then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning the delay, the court should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a loser and he too would have in....