TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 1682
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een sufficiently explained and hence, the same deserves to be condoned. It was submitted that the delay has mainly occasioned on account of the fact that due to inadvertence, the case papers which were forwarded to the Office of the Government Pleader were not traceable and consequently, there was delay in drafting and filing the tax appeal. It was submitted that the bona fide error that had occurred on account of the papers being untraceable in the office of the Government Pleader, is required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of condoning the delay. In support of his submissions, the learned Assistant Government Pleader placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of G. Ramegowda v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, A.I.R. 1988 SC 897, to submit that in litigations to which government is a party, one aspect cannot be ignored, namely, that if appeals brought by the Government are lost for such defaults, no person is individually affected, but in the ultimate analysis, it is the public interest which suffers. Reliance was also placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of N. Balkrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, A.I.R. 1998 SC 3222, as we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... limitation and hence, cannot constitute sufficient cause. 3.1 Ms. Thakore further placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Commissioner Of Wealth Tax, Bombay v. Amateur Riders Club, Bombay, Bombay, 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 603, wherein the court held thus, 3. This explanation is incapable of furnishing a judicially acceptable ground for condonation of delay. After the earlier observations of this Court made in several cases in the past, we hoped that the matters might improve. There seems to be no visible support for this optimism. There is a point beyond which even the courts cannot help a litigant even if the litigant is Government which is itself under the shackles of bureaucratic indifference. Having regard to the law of limitation which binds everybody, we cannot find any way of granting relief. It is true that Government should not be treated as any other private litigant as, indeed, in the case of the former the decisions to present and prosecute appeals are not individual but are institutional decisions necessarily bogged down by the proverbial red- tape. But there are limits to this also. Even with all this latitude, the explanation offered for t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... receipt of the certified copy of the order, consumption of a period of more than 40 days in merely forwarding the proposal can itself be considered to be a considerable delay. Insofar as the Finance Department is concerned, the proposal was received by the Department on 4.2.2016 and was approved on 15.2.2016 and hence, it cannot be said that there was any delay on the part of the said department. It is further averred in the application that after receiving the approval of the Finance Department, the proposal, along with all necessary documents, was handed over to the Office of the Government Pleader on 16.2.2016 to file the appeal. It is also averred that since the matter involves huge claim of refund as well as disallowance of I.T.C. and levy of penalty, the matter was discussed and deliberated upon and there were several discussions and meetings by the officials of the applicant with the law officers for drafting the tax appeal due to which, ultimately the appeal came to be filed only on 7.9.2017, after a delay of 549 days. Thus, the stand taken in the application is that after the papers were received by the Office of the Government Pleader on 16.2.2016, the delay in filing th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o be drafted. Not only that, even after the memorandum of tax appeal was forwarded to the Department, it was signed by the officials of the Value Added Tax Department and filed only on 6.9.2017, after the period of more than twenty days. Thus, it is manifest that all throughout, the officers of the Department have been indolent in the matter of filing the appeal right from the inception. At the first instance there is a delay in sending the proposal to the Finance Department. Subsequently, no proper explanation has come forth with regard to the papers being untraceable in the Office of the Government Pleader and when it has come to the notice of the Department, the necessary steps were taken. Besides, if the papers were forwarded to the office of the Government Pleader and within a short time the memorandum of appeal had not been prepared, the officers of the Value Added Department ought to have followed up with the matter and inquired about the status from the office of the Government Pleader. After forwarding the papers to the office of the Government Pleader the duty of the officials of the concerned department does not end and they should be vigilant and follow up the matter an....