The Commissioner Commercial ... vs M/S J.B.Oil Industries Hardoi ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1889 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 5
 

 
Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 118 of 2013
 

 
Revisionist :- The Commissioner Commercial Taxes U.P.Lucknow
 
Opposite Party :- M/S J.B.Oil Industries Hardoi Road Sitapur
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- C.S.C.
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Chandra Has Misra,Naresh Chandra Mishra,Ramesh Chandra Mishra
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.

Learned counsel for the Respondent Shri Ramesh Chandra Mishra, has pointed out that this Revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 14.07.2010 passed by the Tribunal in Second Appeal No.18 of 2001 for the Assessment year 1996-97 for Central as well as Tax Rules. Against the same order in Second Appeal No.19 of 2001 the revisionist had filed STRED No.117 of 2013 Commissioner of Commercial Tax, U.P., Vs. M/s J.B. Oil Industries, Hardoi Road, Sitapur which Revision having been filed with delay of more than two years and six months has been rejected by this Court by its order dated 25.03.2022 on grounds of delay in filing the Revision.

This Revision has also been filed with a delay of two years six months and 23 days. It ought to be rejected by a similar order.

This Court has perused the order passed by this Court earlier on 25.03.2022 and also the affidavit filed in support of application for Condonation of delay and finds no good ground to pass a different order on the application for Condonation of delay.

This Court in its order dated 25.03.2022 had made the following observations:-

" (4) Learned counsel for the respondent-Assessee has pointed out that the Revision was filed with a delay of 2 years six months and 23 days on 31.05.2013 and delay has not yet been condoned. He has filed objections to the application for Condonation of delay. He says that this Court may consider the explanation for filing Revision with delay by the revisionist and decided for itself whether sufficient cause has been shown. This Court has considered the affidavit filed in support of the application for Condonation of Delay and finds that it states that the judgment of the Tribunal dated 14.07.2010 was received in the office of revisionist on 10.08.2010. Thereafter the matter was referred from the office of the Commissioner, Commercial Tax to the Government for necessary directions and permissions for further action.

It is not mentioned as to when such matter was referred from the office of the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P. to the Government for taking such decision. It has also not been stated clearly as to when the Government referred the matter to the Law Department.

It has also been mentioned that Law Department issued its order for filing a Revision on 29.08.2011 thereafter usual explanation has been given that the Commissioner, Commercial Tax sent the matter to the Additional Commissioner, Grade-II who approached the office of the Chief Standing Counsel who allotted File to the concerned State Law Officer in September, 2011. Since the Parokar was transferred, a new Parokar was appointed who approached the State Law Officer only in September 2012 i.e. after one year but such Revision could not be prepared because a number of Revisions had been allotted to the State Counsel and he was busy in preparing the other cases. Dictation could take place only in January, 2013 which continued upto March, 2013. The draft was sent for vetting and thereafter the Revision was filed.

It has also been stated on affidavit thus:--

"That it is pertinent to mention here that the Government at appropriate level constituted a Legal Cell to examine the cause whether any legal principles are involved for decisions by the Courts or whether the case require adjudication and as such, the authorities/officers are not free to take decisions or issue directions for settlement of the issue. The State cannot be put on the same footing as individuals. The individuals will always be quick in taking decision whether he has remedy by way of appeal or application since he is a person legally entitled, while the State is an impersonal machinery working through its officers or servants and as such the delay occurred in filing the present revision is on account of difference of opinion and the same may be condoned in the ends of justice as the Trade Tax Revision involves important question of law."

(5) A long list of cases starting with the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Kateji reported in 1987 (2) SCC 107 and the case N. Bala Krishnan Vs. M. Krishna Murti reported in 1998 (7) SCC 123 has been cited in the affidavit for condonation of delay. A litigant does not stand to get benefit by lodging an Appeals/Revisions with a delay and till such time it is shown that there was a delay caused deliberately and with malafide intent the Court should be liberal to condone such delay. Moreover, when the State is a applicant, praying for condonation of delay, on account of impersonal machinery and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note making, file pushing and passing on the buck ethos, such delay on the part of the State is less difficult to understand.

(6) Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that no explanation has been given for filing the Revision with delay and therefore delay should not be condoned. He has referred to the judgment rendered in the case of Office of the Chief Post Master General and Others Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Another reported in [(2012) 54 VST 188 (SC)], where the Supreme Court had observed that unless Government Bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months or years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. Government Departments are under a special obligation 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 and the law of limitation binds everybody including the Government.

(7) The counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Central Tibetan Schools Admin & Others, Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.19846 of 2020 decided on 04.02.2021 where the Supreme Court had observed that it is high time to inform all Government bodies their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have a reasonable and acceptable reason and there was a bonafide effort, there is no need to accept usual explanation for delay. The Court observed that although the appellant had argued that if there is some merits in the case, the period of delay is to be given a go-by. If a case is good on merits, it will succeed in any case. However, the Court was of the opinion that the bar of limitation can even shut out good cases. This does not, of course, take away the jurisdiction of the Court in an appropriate case to condone the delay.

It observed thus:--

"The approach is being adopted in what we have categorized earlier as "Certificate cases". The object appears to be to obtain a Certificate of dismissal from the Supreme Court to put a quietus to the issue and thus, say that nothing could be done 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 process is followed. We have on earlier occasion 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 Certificate and if the Government suffers losses, it is time when the concerned Officer responsible for the same bear the consequences. The irony is that none of cases any action is taken against the Officer, 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........."

(8) Learned counsel has also pointed out several other judgments of the Apex Court for example The State of Odisha & others Vs. Sunanda Mahakuda in SLP No.22605 of 2020 decided on 11.01.2021, where such observations have been made by the Supreme Court that where delay has not been properly explained only because the Government has approached the Court, such delay should not be condoned.

(9) The explanation given by the State-revisionist is completely lacking in details, there does not appear to be any good ground to condone the delay. The application for Condonation of delay is rejected.

(10) Hence, the Revision is also rejected."

This Revision is rejected.

Order Date :- 4.5.2022

PAL