TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 367
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rned Counsel further mentioned that thereafter, Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) was announced and the appellant approached said Shri Vivek Mehta for applying in the said Scheme after withdrawing the appeal as was to be filed by him against Order-in-Appeal dated 04.12.2018. It is at that time the appellant came to know that Shri Vivek Mehta had not filed any appeal against the said Order-in-Appeal. Learned Counsel has impressed upon his Affidavit dated 17.03.2022 as sworn for the impugned purpose. 2. It is further submitted that the appellant's case, in case of no appeal being filed, became eligible for declaration under "Arrears category" of the Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) . The application, accordingly, was filed on 20.12.2019 pursuant whereto the payment of Rs. 9,02,664/- was required to be deposited. The time to deposit the same was extended till 31st of March, 2020. Prior the said date, there was announced the lockdown due to global COVID-19 pandemic and the date of said payment was extended to 30th June, 2020. During this period, the appellant's father in law expired on 04.04.2020. The document is impressed upon ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpress upon that a liberal view is to be taken by the Courts in condoning the delay. In addition to above decisions several other decisions like in case of Ram Sumiran Vs D.D.C. 1985 (1) SCC 431 where Hon'ble Apex Court itself observed that, time and again, it has directed that Courts should take a liberal view and should condone the delay. However, in another decision of P.K. Ramachandran Vs State of Kerala, 1997 (7) SCC 556 where also, there was delay of 565 days in filing the appeal which was condoned by the High Court taking into consideration the averments contained in the Affidavit filed in support of the petition to condone the delay. But, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that explanation of delay has to be reasonable and satisfactory which is an essential pre-requisite to condonation of delay. The business of the Counsel in other matters was held by Hon'ble Apex Court as unreasonable and unsatisfactory explanation and condonation of delay of 565 days in filing the appeal accordingly was declined: The Hon'ble Apex Court directed that irrespective the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribe ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(5) CTC 547 has culled out, from the various authorities, the following principles: (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an Application for condonation of delay, for the Courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. (ii) The terms "sufficient cause" should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact-situation. (iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. (iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the Counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. (vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the Courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the ultimate institutional motto. (d) The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non-serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a non-challant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters." 9. After analyzing the above settled principles vide various decisions, we now revert to the merits of the application in hand. We notice that order dated 04.12.2018 was admittedly received by the appellant within one week thereof i.e. on 11.12.2018. On the same day, it has been mentioned to have been given to the appellant's consultant Shri Vivek Mehta for filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The appeal should have been filed on or before 11th March, 2019. The appellant was required to be diligent and conscious about the appeal to have been filed by his consultant within the said prescribed period. We observe that the entire application is absolutely silent about exercising said diligence by the appellant. 10. Appellant failed to communicate with the said consultant during the prescribed period. It was deliberate inaction and negligence on part of appellant. We also observe that on last date of hearing also, it was observed that no re....