TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 714X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stion raised in the Tax Appeals was a substantive question of law and the stake involved in these Tax Appeals was also high, this additional aspect cannot be disregarded while condoning the delay - the Court needs to be alive to the realities when the matters were decided at every stage administratively and recognize the impersonal and slow moving machinery of the Government and needs to accordingly address the issue of condonation of delay put forth by the State - Giving importance to the substantive justice, rather than to the technicality, the Court shall have to mould its approach accordingly on having found sufficient cause in absence of any deliberate inaction. - CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 169 of 2013 In STAMP NUMBER NO. 572 of 2013 With CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 170 of 2013 In STAMP NUMBER NO. 569 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 26-4-2013 - Akil Kureshi And Sonia Gokani,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Jaimin Gandhi AGP For the Respondent : M/s Patel Advocates ORDER (Per : Honourable Ms. Justice Sonia Gokani) Aggrieved by the decision of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad { Tribunal for short} dated 6th December 2010 in Revision Applications No. 104/2010 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considering the details made in the affidavit and further affidavit, the Court may condone the delay. Per contra, learned advocate Shri Patel appearing for the opponent has fervently objected to grant of these applications. It is urged, inter alia, that minus the additional affidavit, no explanation appears worth considering and even in the additional affidavit, what all the applicant has pleaded is administrative reason for such delay and that should never be construed as sufficient ground for this Court to liberally construe the explanation of the Government. He further urged that the applicant cannot be placed on a higher pedestal than an ordinary citizen when no explanation worth the name has come before the Court, and therefore, delay must not be condoned. He also further urged that delay of each day even if not explained, particularly at every stage why such delay occurred need to be sufficiently explained by the applicant before such application is allowed in a routine manner. Upon thus hearing both the sides and on considering the pleadings of the parties, these Applications deserve to be allowed for the following reasons: This Court is conscious of the fact that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the office of the Government Pleader that, due to heavy workload the tax appeal could not be drafted and could not be filed within reasonable time period. Reliance is also placed on the judgment rendered in case of G. Ramegowda v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, reported in AIR 1988 SC 897 wherein, in paragraph 6 of the judgment, it is observed as under :Page In litigations to which Government is a party there is yet another aspect which perhaps cannot be ignored. If appeals brought by Government are lost for such defaults, no person is individually affected; but what, in the ultimate analysis, suffers is public interest. The decisions of the Government are collective and institutional decisions and do not share the characteristics of decisions of private individuals. Therefore, in assessing what, in a particular case, constitutes sufficient cause for the purposes of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it might, perhaps, be somewhat unrealistic to exclude from the considerations that go into the judicial verdict, these factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the Government. Governmental decisions are proverbially slow encumbered, as they a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asons recorded thereinafter, such delay is required to be condoned. Firstly, in our opinion, the affidavit - contents of which are noted above, renders reasonable explanation for such delay and gives reasons why appeal could not be presented within the prescribed time limit. It is pointed out that upon receipt of the judgment of the Tribunal, after obtaining opinion of the concerned officers, a decision was taken for filing the appeal. Approval from the Finance Department had thereafter, to be obtained. After obtaining such approval, necessary papers were handed over to the office of Government Pleader, Gujarat High Court. Due to heavy work load and shortage of staff, considerable time was consumed in the office of the Government Pleader in drafting such appeal. It is contended that the appeal involves substantial question of law. Simultaneously, we also notice that the duty amount involved in the present case is in excess of Rs.6 Crores. In our opinion, looking to the nature of delay, explanation rendered by the appellant in various affidavits and the tax impact in the appeal, we would be inclined to condoned the delay. We would not in the case of this nature, like to dismiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubstantial justice and generally delays in preferring the appeals are required to be condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of delay. In litigations to which Government is a party, there is yet another aspect which, perhaps, cannot be ignored. If appeals brought by Government are lost for such defaults, no person is individually affected, but what, in the ultimate analysis, suffers is public interest. The decisions of Government are collective and institutional decisions and do not share the characteristics of decisions of private individuals. The law of limitation is, no doubt, the same for a private citizen as for governmental authorities. Government, like any other litigant must take responsibility for the acts, omissions of its officers. But a somewhat different complexion is imparted to the matter where Government makes out a case where public interest was shown to have suffered owing to acts of fraud or bad faith on the part of its officers or agents and where the officers were clearly at cross-purposes with it. It was, therefore, held that in assessing what const ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are involved for decision by the courts or whether cases require adjustment and should authorise the officers to take a decision or give appropriate permission for settlement. In the event of decision to file appeal needed prompt action should be pursued by the officer responsible to file the appeal and he should be made personally responsible for lapses, if any. Equally, the State cannot be put on the same footing as an individual. The individual would always be quick in taking the decision whether he would pursue the remedy by way of an appeal or application since he is a person legally injured while State is an impersonal machinery working through its officers or servants. 16. The above position was highlighted in State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and Ors. (1996 (3) SCC 132); and Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition, Kerala v. K.V. Ayisumma (1996 (10) SCC 634). It was noted that adoption of strict standard of proof sometimes fail to protract public justice, and it would result in public mischief by skilful management of delay in the process of filing an appeal. It could thus be seen that though like any other litigant, the State authorities are also equally bound by the law o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
