TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 1039
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Tribunal were handed over to the GP office on 02/01/2016 to file the Tax Appeal. The Applicant says that Tax Appeal was required to be filed on or before 16/11/2015. However, the same was filed on 28.04.2017 and thus there is a delay of 541 days in preferring the Tax Appeal." 3. Additionally, it was also averred that the Government Machinery is impersonal and greater patience should be shown lest the public interest may suffer. 4. Not satisfied with such explanation, we had permitted the State to file additional affidavit further explaining the delay. In such additional affidavit dated 3.3.2018, following further averments are made : "3. Thereafter on 10.11.2015 the proposal to file the Tax Appeal was sent to the Finance Department and on 17.12.2015 the Finance Department approved the proposal. After receiving the proposal from Finance Department all necessary documents along with order of the Tribunal were handed over to the G.P. Office on 02.01.2016 to file the Tax Appeal. However it has been informed that due to inadvertence the papers that were handed over to the GP officer could not reach the concerned Law Officer. It is humbly stated that it has been informed to not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... We have already extracted the reasons as mentioned in the "better affidavit" sworn by Mr. Aparajeet Pattanayak, SSRM, Air Mail Sorting Division, New Delhi. It is relevant to note that in the said affidavit, the Department has itself mentioned and is aware of the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in LPA Nos. 418 and 1006 of 2007 as 11.09.2009. Even according to the deponent, their counsel had applied for the certified copy of the said judgment only on 08.01.2010 and the same was received by the Department on the very same day. There is no explanation for not applying for certified copy of the impugned judgment on 11.09.2009 or at least within a reasonable time. The fact remains that the certified copy was applied only on 08.01.2010, i.e. after a period of nearly four months." 7. She also relied on Division Bench judgment of this Court in case of State of Gujarat v. Vasudha Product Ltd. (Civil Application No.390/2013, judgment dated 8.8.2013) in which the Court finding that there was insufficient explanation, refused to condone the delay of 904 days in filing the tax appeal. 8. Explanation for delay comes in two parts. In the application for condonation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch 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 of papers were handed over to the Government Pleader's office on 29.06.2017. The Tax Appeal was drafted and forwarded to the VAT Department on 12.07.2017. After receiving from the VAT Department, it was filed in the High Court on 09.08.2017. 4. It can thus be seen that the delay is properly explained. It is true that there was a clear error on part of the Government Pleader's Office in not taking prompt steps for drafting and filing the Tax Appeal. However, Government Pleader's Office owned up this mistake. It is stated that after receiving the papers on 13.07.2016, the same were misplaced. When this came to light, the VAT department was contacted in March 2017 for supplying second set of papers. Government Pleader's office received such papers on 29.06.2017. Tax Appeal was drafted and sent to VAT Department on 12.07.2017 and the appeal was filed on 09.08.2017. 5. This is therefore not a case where long stretch of delay had rem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alities of delay in presenting the appeal. Delay as accordingly condoned, the order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the High Court for disposal on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. In Prabha v. Ram Parkash Kalra (1987 Supp SCC 339), this Court had held that the court should not adopt an injusticeoriented approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. The appeal was allowed, the delay was condoned and the matter was remitted for expeditious disposal in accordance 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imate analysis suffers, is public interest. The expression "sufficient cause" should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justiceoriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every days delay. The factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the governmental conditions would be cognizant to and requires adoption of pragmatic approach in justiceoriented process. The court should decide the matters on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit. No separate standards to determine the cause laid by the State visavis 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 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inance Department which returned the file to the concerned Department for reconsideration after constituting subcommittee for the purpose and after the subcommittee was constituted on two occasions, decision to prefer appeal or not was considered and thereafter upon close scrutiny and financial implications, the committee gave opinion to prefer appeals. The decision of the committee was accepted by the concerned Department which thereafter, forwarded its proposal to the Legal Department for final 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 followe....