TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 23
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ail annexed herewith as Exhibit A). 14.01.2019 2. After the receipt of the said mail, copy of the impugned order attached thereto was downloaded. Representatives of the Appellant visited the Thane GST Office/Dadar GST Office on numerous occasions for ascertaining procedure for filing appeal. 15.01.2019 to 10.03.2019 3. Since elections for Lok Sabha were declared and model code of conduct came into force, the concerned officials of the Appellant were assigned election duty. 10.03.2019 to 23.05.2019 4. After declaration of elections, identification and engaging a counsel for preparation and filing of appeal was initiated. 27.05.2019 to 20.08.2019 5. Email received from GST Department requesting for details of filing of appeal. (Copy of email annexed herewith as Exhibit B). 30.08.2019 6. Discussion and meeting held with Mr. Prasannan Namboodiri, Advocate for engaging him in the matter. 02.09.2019 & 19.09.2019 7. Proposal received from Mr. Prasannan Namboodiri, Advocate in respect to the subject matter. (Copy of email and proposal annexed herewith as Exhibit C Colly.) 21.09.2019 8. Discussion with Mr. Prasannan Namboodiri, Advocate for revision of fees and terms an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imitation Act, 1963 (for short, the 'Act') extends prescribed period of limitation in filing an application or an appeal except under the provisions of Order 21 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, the 'Code') and gives power to the Court to admit the appeal or application after the prescribed period. The only condition is that the applicant/appellant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. In Ramlal, Motilal & Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. [(1962) 2 SCR 762] it was laid down that in showing sufficient cause to condone the delay, it is not necessary that the applicant/appellant has to explain whole of the period between the date of the judgment till the date of filing the appeal. It is sufficient that the applicant/appellant would explain the delay caused by the period between the last of the dates of limitation and the date on which the appeal/application is actually filed. 4.What constitute sufficient cause cannot be laid down by hard and fast rules. In New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Shanti Misra - AIR 1976 SC 237, this Court held that discretion given by Section 5 should not be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the limitation in an appeal filed by the State and held that Section 5 was enacted in order to enable the Court to do substantial justice to the parties by disposing of matters on merits. The expression "sufficient cause" is adequately elastic to enable the Court to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of the justice - that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other Courts in the hierarchy. This Court reiterated that the expression "every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable neglige....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 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 individual. 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 or omissions of its officers. But a somewhat different complexion is imparted to the matter where Government makes out a case where public interest was shown to have suffered owing to acts of fraud or bad faith on the part of its officers or agents and where the officers were clearly at cross-purposes with it. It was, therefore, held tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was held to be a sufficient cause and delay of 14 days was condoned. In Ram Kishan v. U.P. State Roadways Transport Corpn., (1994) Supp (2) SCC 507, this Court had held that although the story put forward by the applicant for not filing the application for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act within the period of limitation was not found convincing but keeping in view the facts and circumstances and cause of justice, the delay was condoned and the appeal was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal to dispose it on merits. In Warlu v. Gangotribai, (1995) Supp (1) SCC 37, a three-Judge Bench condoned delay of 11 years in filing the special leave petition. 11.It is notorious and common knowledge that delay in more than 60 per cent of the cases filed in this Court - be it by private party or the State - are barred by limitation and this Court generally adopts liberal approach in condonation of delay finding somewhat sufficient cause to decide the appeal on merits. It is equally common knowledge that litigants including the State are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an evenhanded manner. When the State is an applicant, praying for condonat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it must be held that the delay of 109 days in this case has been explained and that it is a fit case for condonation of the delay. 12.On the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case for condoning the delay. The delay is accordingly condoned. The High Court is requested to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible." 6.0 While approving the principals laid down in the above referred decision (para 7) Hon'ble Apex Court has in case of Office of the Chief Post Master General [2012 (277) ELT 289 (SC) ], Hon'ble Supreme Court has held follows: "12. 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 condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....overnment (Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107). This position is more than elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. (2012) 3 SCC 563 where the Court observed as under: Defect 13 Appeal Diary No.850982020 "12) 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 3 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 condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ne because the highest Court has dismissed the appeal. It is to complete this formality and save the skin of officers who may be at default that such a process is followed. We have on earlier occasions also strongly deprecated such a practice and process. There seems to be no improvement. The purpose of coming to this Court is not to obtain such certificates and if the Government suffers losses, it is time when the concerned officer responsible for the same bears the consequences. The irony is that in none of the cases any action is taken against the officers, who sit on the files and do nothing. It is presumed that this Court will condone the delay and even in making submissions, straight away counsels appear to address on merits without referring even to the aspect of limitation as happened in this case till we pointed out to the counsel that he must first address us on the question of limitation." 9.0 Thus the law as stated by the Hon'ble Apex Court is very succinct and clear that while examining the applications for condonation of delay, some leeway should be given to the government bodies and agencies, however this does not imply condoning the inordinate and unexplained dela....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, the noticee neither appeared for the personal hearing nor made any written communication for extension of personal hearing. 4.3 Another date for personal hearing to be conducted on 09.08.2018 was sent to the noticee by Speed Post on 27.07.2018 and communicated to the noticee by Speed Post tracking number EM 137657668 IN. As per details available on India Post website www.indiapost.gov.in the consignment i.e. the letter was delivered to the noticee on 01.08.2018 at 16.34.41 Hrs. The noticee neither appeared for the personal hearing nor made any written request for extension of personal hearing." 10.0 From the facts as stated above it is evident that the appellant was nowhere aware of the completion of adjudication proceedings and the order passed against them. On the passing of the order as per the affidavit filed by the appellant, they for first time came to know about the order when the same was forwarded to them as attachment to email dated 14.01.2019, i.e. more than three from the date of order i.e. 17.08.2018 or 23.08.2018 shown as date of dispatch. So the appellants were definitely not in position to act on the order. Thereafter there was Lok Sabha Elections announced....