Case Law Details
In the present appeals, the appellant i.e., the Pay and Accounts Officer is representing the Government of Tamil Nadu. It is an admitted fact that interest imposed on the appellant under Section 201(1A) has been paid by the appellant on protest and pursued the appellate remedy by obtaining necessary sanction from the Government in G.O.Ms.No.114 dated 27.3.2002. Thus there is a delay of 701 days, which is explained as administrative delay. The said reason cannot be rejected as it is not sufficient cause. In the facts of the present case, every day’s delay cannot be explained and as such the pedantic approach should not be made. The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. The delay in this case cannot be regarded as occasioned deliberately or on account of negligence or on account of malafides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay, but he runs a serious risk. Courts are not respected on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. (See 2005(3) SCC 752). Making a justice oriented approach from this perspective, there is sufficient cause for condoning the delay.
High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated : 08.07.2008
Tax Case (Appeal) Nos.745 to 748 of 2008
The Pay and Accounts Officer (East) Chepauk, Chennai T.C.(A)
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
