TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 1488
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndonation of delay making prayer that the delay in filing the said revision may be condoned. Hence, the application for condonation of delay is required to be heard and decided first. 3. By means of instant Trade Tax Revision, the revisionist has challenged the judgment and order dated 15.06.2002, passed by the U.P. Trade Tax Tribunal, Full Bench, Lucknow, by which the appeal of the appellant (respondent herein) has been allowed. 4. The instant revision has been filed on 04.04.2011 i.e. after the long delay of eight years, eight months and twenty five days, while the learned Tribunal has passed the order on 15.06.2002. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the impugned judgment and order dated 15.06.200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the files to some other State Counsel. As a consequence, the duplicate files were got prepared and the files were allotted to other State Counsels vide order dated 22.12.2009. Some of the files (including the present one) could not be located in the office of the previous State Counsel, thereafter, the files were reconstituted and missing certified copy copy of the order of the learned Tribunal was also procured from the office of the learned Tribunal. Since the State Counsel (Sri Sanjieva Shankhdhar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel to whom the present file was allotted) got overburdened because of drafting of regular TTRs being allotted to him in routine course, therefore, it took time for drafting the present Trade Tax Revision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Postmaster General and others vs. Living Media India Ltd. and another reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563, in which, in paras-27, 28, 29 & 30 observed as under:- "27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be cond....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay." 10. Sri Agarwal has also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of U.P. through Executive Engineer and another vs. Amar Nath Yadav reported in (2014) 2 SCC 422, in which Hon'ble Apex Court has also considered the case of Postmaster General (supra) and has refused to condone the delay and dismissed the Special Leave Petition. The relevant para-3 is being reproduced....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....partment came to know that no revision has been filed by the State Counsel. Therefore, the learned Chief Standing Counsel was requested to allot the files to some other State Counsel. However, no explanation from the year 2002 to 2009 has been given. In case files were allotted to the State Counsel in the year 2003, eventhen the revisionist must have contacted the State Counsel / office of the Chief Standing Counsel to know about the fate/ progress of the aforesaid revision, but nothing has been seriously done on the part of the revisionist with regard to filing of the revision. Therefore, the explanation given by the revisionist for condonation of delay cannot be said to be the sufficient reasons. 15. Despite being respectful with the j....