TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 1033
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... After receiving the judgement dated 24/02/2016 from the learned Tribunal on 28/03/2016, opinions of several officers are sought as whether or not to file the appeal. Thereafter, the commercial tax department sent a proposal to the Government on 30/06/2016 for approval of the Government to file the Tax Appeal. Thereafter some quarries raised by the legal department and reply given by Commercial Tax department, the approval of Government was received on 05/07/2016. Thereafter, all the necessary documents were supplied to the office of the Government Pleader on 13/07/2016 to file tax appeal. The applicant says that the present tax appeal was required to be filed on or before 27/06/2016. However, th same was filed on 11.08.2017 and thus, there is a delay of 444 days in preferring the tax appeal. 6. The applicant further states that due to Government administrative mechanism, every work passed and comes back to source point through a route system and hence, the tax appeal could not be filed within the statutory time limit. Due to administrative procedures time was consumed and hence, the delay was caused." 2. Finding that the explanation may not be entirely satisfactory covering t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... It is further submitted before this Hon'ble Court that usually once the papers are handed over to the concerned law officers, immediately thereupon the tax appeals are drafted at the earliest and the same are filed." 3. It can thus be seen that the reasons cited for preferring the appeal after delay mainly raised on two grounds. First is that the administrative clearances and decisions take sometime. It is pointed out that the judgement of the Tribunal dated 24.02.2016 was received on 28.03.2016. After receiving opinion from the concerned authorities, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, sent a proposal to the Government for filing appeal on 30.05.2016. Queries in this respect were made and replied by the Commercial Tax Department. Ultimately, approval was received from the Government on 05.07.2016. Necessary documents were supplied to the office of the Government Pleader on 13.07.2016 with instructions to file tax appeal. However, such papers were misplaced in the office of the Government Pleader. This was brought to the notice of the Officer of the Government Pleader upon which, immediately the officers were contacted in March 2017. In response to this, second set....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....overnment pleader. No further details were provided. The Court further noted that even after loss of papers for 15 months, no register was shown to file the tax appeal without any further delay. 8. Reliance is also placed on the decisions of this Court in case of State of Gujarat vs. Shree Ashok Saw Mill and Wood Works reported in 59 VST 167. The first distinction point is that the delay in the said case was of 1226 days and the explanation rendered was in general terms citing slowness of Government administrative mechanism. The Court, therefore refused to condone the delay observing that in absence of any specific details and explanations, such explanation in general nature would not satisfy the Court. Therefore, the judgement of this case therefore cannot be applied to the facts on hand. 9. Learned AGP Shri Dave on the other hand pointed out that this Court in judgement dated 15.09.2017 in case of State of Gujarat vs. Mohit Industries Ltd [O.J.Civil Application No. 366 of 2017] had accepted somewhat same explanation and condoned the delay. 10. In case of State of Gujarat v. Welspun Gujarat Stahl Rohren Ltd (Civil Application(OJ) No.253/2012, order dated 15.3.2013), this Court ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ance with law. 14. In G. Ramegowda, Major v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer (1988 (2) SCC 142), it was held that no general principle saving the party from all mistakes of its counsel could be laid. The expression "sufficient cause" must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally delays in preferring the appeals are required to be condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of delay. In litigations to which Government is a party, there is yet another aspect which, perhaps, cannot be ignored. If appeals brought by Government are lost for such defaults, no person is individually affected, but what, in the ultimate analysis, suffers is public interest. The decisions of Government are collective and institutional decisions and do not share the characteristics of decisions of private individuals. The law of limitation is, no doubt, the same for a private citizen as for governmental authorities. Government, like any other litigant must take responsibility for the acts, omissions of its officers. But a somewhat different complexion is impart....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....opelessly without merit. No separate standards to determine the cause laid by the State vis-a-vis private litigant could be laid to prove strict standards of sufficient cause. The Government at appropriate level should constitute legal cells to examine the cases whether any legal principles are involved for decision by the courts or whether cases require adjustment and should authorise the officers to take a decision or give appropriate permission for settlement. In the event of decision to file appeal needed prompt action should be pursued by the officer responsible to file the appeal and he should be made personally responsible for lapses, if any. Equally, the State cannot be put on the same footing as an individual. The individual would always be quick in taking the decision whether he would pursue the remedy by way of an appeal or application since he is a person legally injured while State is an impersonal machinery working through its officers or servants. 16. The above position was highlighted in State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and Ors. (1996 (3) SCC 132); and Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition, Kerala v. K.V. Ayisumma (1996 (10) SCC 634). It was noted that adoption of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l approval to prefer appeals. 21. The major portion of the delay between the date of the impugned award and the date of knowledge of the award to the Department concerned with the acquisition process can be attributed only to any individual whose responsibility it was to embark upon the proceedings which are the natural consequences of the impugned award. The options available are either to accept the award and proceed to execute the same or to challenge the same. Nothing on record is pointed out about the steps taken by claimants also to get the award executed. Therefore, when there is a large time gap in the initiation of the action, but once action is initiated it is vigilantly followed and reasonably explained, then the initial time gap in initiating the action requires to be construed liberally. 22. In a given case, the reason behind lack of prompt action at local level can be attributed to several local factors prevailing at relevant time. These factors may not be within the control or knowledge of the Government Department at the State level. Hence such situation, if results in delay in initiating the process of filing appeal, if not inordinate, should not be permitted....