TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1968
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at also submits that the controversy involved in the present appeals pertains to the provisional attachment orders passed by the Appropriate Authorities under Section 24(5) of the PBPT Act in the year 2019, which were subsequently revoked by the Adjudicating Authorities under Section 26(3) of the PBPT Act in the year 2021. 1.2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that such revocation orders were challenged by the respondents herein by filing a joint appeal in November 2021 before the Appellate Tribunal; however, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the said appeal on 15.02.2023 while granting liberty to them to file separate appeals for each reference, recognizing the distinct nature of the attachment orders and ensuring separate explanation of the factual matrix for each. 1.3. Furthermore, learned counsel for the appellant submits that ones the specific order dated 15.02.2023 was there, it was the duty of the respondents to file separate appeals; however, without doing so, they sought and were granted time extension of three weeks' on 27.07.2023, which set a deadline of 17.08.2023, but despite this, they failed to do so and even then, all the appeals were brought before th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... On the last date of hearing i.e. 05.12.2011 this Hon'ble Court was pleased to allow the petitions to file better affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition. 3) It is submitted that the delay is not intentional but is on account of the departmental/administrative procedures involved in for filing the petition for Special Leave Petition. It is submitted that unlike the private litigant the matters relating to government are required to be considered at various levels and then only a decision is taken. 4) In the present case it would be evident from the following that delay has been caused due to unavoidable circumstances:- 11.09.2009 Date of judgment in LPA Nos. 418/2007 and 1006/2007. 29.10.2009 Certified copy of judgment not received from the Government counsel and hence copy of judgment was downloaded from the web site of Delhi High Court and office note was put by ASP (Court) proposing to refer the matter to Postal Directorate for opinion and further course of action for approval of the Chief Postmaster General, Delhi. 12.11.2009 Chief Postmaster General Delhi approved to refer the matter ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so took some time. 04.01.2011 Special Leave Petition remained pending due to non-availability of disputed magazines of Reader's Digest and India Today. Hence, ASG was requested to intervene and direct Shri Akash Pratap who handled the case to provide the magazines. 14.01.2011 Shri A.K. Sharma was requested to arrange to collect the above magazines from the record of Delhi High Court. 31.01.2011 SSRM Delhi Sorting Division was authorized to sign the affidavit on behalf of the respondent. 10.02.2011 Special Leave Petition filed in Supreme Court. 5. It is submitted that it is evident from the fore going reasons that the delay caused in filing the petition was result of all the necessary and unavoidable office formalities and was bonafide and not deliberate or intentional and the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the petition within the period of limitation. 6. It is further submitted that the petitioner humbly seeks leave to draw the kind attention of this Hon'ble Court to the views expressed by this Hon'ble Court that liberal approach may be adopted and that the Court should not take too strict and pedantic stand which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the Hon'ble High Court ought to have condoned the delay in considering the public revenue involved and also because of the genuine difficulties and circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner, on account of which Special Leave Petition could not be filed within the time." 10) ... ... ... 11) 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. In spite of affording another opportunity to file better affidavi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....igation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay." (ii) Judgment dated 03.04.2024 rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. Vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) Through His LR [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.21096/2019] : 2024 INSC 262, wherein it is held as under:- "26. The length of the delay is a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the appellants, it appears that they want to fix their own period of limitation for instituting the proceedings for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "25. 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 Office of the Chief Postmaster v. Living Media India Ltd. [(2009) 8 AD 201 (Del)] as 11-9-2009. Even according to the deponent, their counsel had applied for the certified copy of the said judgment only on 8-1-2010 and the same was received by the Department on the very same day. There is no explanation for not applying for the certified copy of the impugned judgment on 11-92009 or at least within a reasonable time. The fact remains that the certified copy was applied for only on 8-1-2010 i.e. after a period of nearly four months. 26. In spite of affording another opportunity to file better affidavit by placing adequate material, neither the Department nor the person-in-charge has filed any explanation for not applying the certified copy within the prescribed period. The other dates mentioned in the affidavit which we have already extracted, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few." 31. In the case of Lanka Venkateswarlu (D) by LRs v. State of Andhra Pradesh & others, (2011) 4 SCC 363, this Court made the following observations: "20. In N. Balakrishnan, [(1998) 7 SCC 123] this Court again reiterated the principle that: (SCC p. 127, para 11) "11. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that [the] parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly." 21 to 27......... 28. We are at a loss to fathom any logic or rationale, which could have impelled the High Court to condone the delay after holding the same to be unjustifiable. The concepts such as "liberal approach", "justice-oriented approach", "substantial justice" cannot be employed to jettison the substantial law of limitation. Especially, in cases where the court concludes that there is no justification for the delay. In our opinion, the approach adopted by the High Court tends to show the absence of judicial balance and restraint, which a Judge is required to maintain whilst adjudicating any lis between the parties. We are rat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....annot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. 21.8. (viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. 21.9. (ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. 21.10. (x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation. 21.11. (xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation. 21.12. (xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r a fixed period of time; (iii) The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally; (iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act; (v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence; (vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal; (vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and (viii) Delay condonation application has t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arty to the reference before its decision, they could have applied for procedural review which they never did. Thus, there is apparently no due diligence on their part in pursuing the matter. Accordingly, in our opinion, High Court is justified in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 33. In the above situation, we do not deem it proper and necessary to interfere with the decision of the High Court refusing to condone the inordinate delay in filing the proposed appeal." (iv) Order dated 14.02.2022 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. M/s. Dev Ganga Enterprises (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.493/2019), wherein it is held as under:- "Though the case is listed for order we find that there is long and unexplained delay of 318 days in filing the appeal. In order to explain delay, all that has been stated in the application is as below "2. The obtaining the copy of the order dated 16.02.2018 legal opinion of the Government Counsel was given, which accordingly was forwarded to higher authorities. 3. That the matter was then considered by the Committee and it was decided to file appeal in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t 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 the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government. 13) In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the delay caused in filing the appeal is bonafide and which deserve[s] to be condoned." However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not satisfied with the cause shown on the above lines and it was held as below : "66. This explanation falls woefully short of making out any sufficient cause. This appeal is therefore allowed and the condonation of delay is set aside on this score also." The cause shown in the application, if we may say so is bereft of any sufficient cause for such a long delay. Only on the ground of delay this appeal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed." 1.7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the long delay on the part of the respondents has to be dealt with strictly and any kind of unreasoned condonation of delay would not be in the interest of justice. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. K.K. Bissa submits that the application for condonation of delay was filed with the ample reasons and has drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant part of that application, which reads as follows :- "1. The contents of the accompanying Appeal u/s 46 of the PBPT Act, 1988 (as amended up to date) ma....