2022 (9) TMI 533
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....les/trade tax revisions have been filed with delay of 163 days, 207 days & 197 days respectively. The grounds taken for condonation of delay in filing the aforesaid revisions are almost similar. Hence, all the aforesaid delay condonation applications are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts of C.M.Application No. 14304 of 2020 are being taken. 3. In order to explain the delay, instant application has been filed wherein contending that the order of the learned Tribunal dated 07.02.2019 as corrected on 25.03.2019 has been served in the department on 23.04.2019 and consequently, limitation would start from service of the order dated 23.04.2019. Placing reliance on the averment contained in paragraphs 3 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a recent three judges judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. Central Tibetan Schools Admin and Ors reported in (2021) SCC Online 119 wherein after placing reliance on the judgment of Living Media India Ltd (supra) the Apex Court has refused to condone the delay and has dismissed the Special Leave to Petition with a strong warning to the department. Reliance has also been placed on another recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs Volex Interconnect (India) Pvt. Ltd reported in (2022) 3 SCC 159. 6. Placing reliance of the aforesaid judgments, it is argued that the application for condonation of delay merits to be dismissed as the revisions have been filed with substantial delay. 7. Having....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 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. 28.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 bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecause the manner in which the Government is prosecuting its appeal reflects nothing better! The mighty Government of India is manned with a large Legal Department having numerous officers and advocates. The excuse given for the delay is, to say the least, preposterous. 5. We have repeatedly been counselling through our orders various Government Departments, State Governments and other public authorities that they must learn to file appeals in time and set their house in order so far as the Legal Department is concerned, more so as technology assists them. This appears to be falling on deaf ears despite costs having been imposed in a number of matters with the direction to recover it from the officers responsible for the delay as w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (2012) 3 SCC 563 : (2012) 2 SCC (Civ) 327 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 580 : (2012) 1 SCC (L&S) 649] Despite this, there seems to be a little change in the approach of the Government and public authorities. 7. We have also categorised such kind of cases as "certificate cases" filed with the only object to obtain a quietus from the Supreme Court on the ground that nothing could be done because the highest Court has dismissed the appeal. The objective is to complete a mere formality and save the skin of the officers who may be in default in following the due process or may have done it deliberately. We have deprecated such practice and process and we do so again. We refuse to grant such certificates and if the Government/public authorities ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....despite the aforesaid and find that a correct view has been taken by the Tribunal as the Department itself is treating the assessee in the same manner for subsequent years so far as classification is concerned. 4.We are thus of the view that for both the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is not liable to be entertained. The appeal is dismissed accordingly." 12. Considering the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court what is to be seen is as to whether any plausible reason has been indicated by the revisionist in filing the instant revisions. 13. A perusal of paragraphs 3 to 8 of the application of condonation of delay would indicate that a very cavalier and casual attitude has been shown by the revisionist in filing the instant rev....
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
TaxTMI