Case Law Details

Case Name : The Commissioner Vs M/s T.V. Sundaram Ayangar & Sons (Uttarakhand High Court)
Appeal Number : Commercial Tax Revision No. 08 of 2017
Date of Judgement/Order : 12/06/2018
Related Assessment Year :

CIT Vs M/s T.V. Sundaram Ayangar & Sons (Uttarakhand High Court)

It is stated that since there was no authorized translator in the Department as well as in the office of the Chief Standing Counsel, it took some time to translate the documents. Lastly, it is stated  that due to above mentioned reasons, delay has occurred in filing the present revision, which may kindly be condoned and the revision be treated to have been filed within time.

In Brijesh Kumar and others vs State of Haryana and others, (2014) 11 SCC 351, Hon’ble Apex Court relying upon the previous judgment of Esha Bhattacharjee (supra) has laid down the various principles in paragraph 10 of said judgment. The same reads as under:

“10. The Courts should not adopt an injustice-oriented approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. However, the court while allowing such application has to draw a distinction between delay and inordinate delay for want of bona fides of an inaction or negligence would deprive a party of the protection of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of discretion by the court for condoning the delay. This Court has time and again held that when mandatory provision is not complied with and that delay is not property, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, the court cannot condone the delay on sympathetic grounds along.”

Since the delay in filing the revision is inordinate and has not been explained sufficiently in the affidavit accompanying the delay condonation application and not even a single condition laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in judgments (supra) has been satisfied, the delay condonation application (CLMA no. 1211 of 2017) is liable to be dismissed. The same is hereby dismissed.

FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT

There is delay of 1782 days’ in filing the present revision. Delay condonation application no. 1211 of 2017 has been filed for condoning the delay. The said application is accompanied with the affidavit of Ms. Smita, Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Nainital.

2) It is stated in paragraph 2 of the affidavit that copy of the impugned judgment and order dated 20.12.2011 was received by the Department on 30.12.2011. Thereafter the matter was discussed at different levels in the Department. In paragraph no. 4 it is stated that the Department had initiated necessary steps within time for obtaining the permission from the Law Department for filing the present revision, but considerable time was consumed in completing the procedural formalities and only then the permission was granted by the Law Department. It is further stated in para 5 that Department instructed the concerned official to contact the Office of the Chief Standing Counsel, who in pursuance of said direction contacted the office of the Chief Standing Counsel and the case was allotted to the State Counsel. In paragraph 6 of the said affidavit it is stated that since there was no authorized translator in the Department as well as in the office of the Chief Standing Counsel, it took some time to translate the documents. Lastly, it is stated in paragraph 7 of the affidavit that due to above mentioned reasons, delay has occurred in filing the present revision, which may kindly be condoned and the revision be treated to have been filed within time.

3. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy reported in (2013) 12 SCC 649, has laid down the various principles for condoning the delay. Same are extracted hereunder:-

“21.5 Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact.

21.7 The concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play.

21.9 The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factor 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 ad the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach.

22.4 The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a nonchalant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters.”

4. In Brijesh Kumar and others vs State of Haryana and others, (2014) 11 SCC 351, Hon’ble Apex Court relying upon the previous judgment of Esha Bhattacharjee (supra) has laid down the various principles in paragraph 10 of said judgment. The same reads as under:

“10. The Courts should not adopt an injustice-oriented approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. However, the court while allowing such application has to draw a distinction between delay and inordinate delay for want of bona fides of an inaction or negligence would deprive a party of the protection of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of discretion by the court for condoning the delay. This Court has time and again held that when mandatory provision is not complied with and that delay is not property, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, the court cannot condone the delay on sympathetic grounds along.”

5. Since the delay in filing the revision is inordinate and has not been explained sufficiently in the affidavit accompanying the delay condonation application and not even a single condition laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in judgments (supra) has been satisfied, the delay condonation application (CLMA no. 1211 of 2017) is liable to be dismissed. The same is hereby dismissed.

6. Consequently, the revision also stands dismissed.

Download Judgment/Order

More Under Income Tax

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Posts by Date

June 2021
M T W T F S S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930