TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nation Application No.3134 of 2014, Sales/Trade Tax Revision Defective No. - 1 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 7-1-2014 - Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. For the Applicant : S.C. ORDER 1. This revision has been preferred with a delay of 223 days therefore is barred by time. In a very casual fashion, delay has sought to be explained, inasmuch as, it is admitted that order passed by Tribunal dated 13.2.2013 was received by Department on 23.02.2013 but thereafter first step was taken on 24.4.2013 by Deputy Commissioner-State Representative, Commercial Tax, Varanasi, who requested Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Sector-7, Varanasi vide letter dated 24.4.2013 to send typed copy of the assessment order, first appellate order and order of Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ona fide is imputable to parties, seeking condonation of delay. In Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Katiji, 1987(2) SCC 107, the Court said, that, when substantial justice and technical considerations are taken against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for, the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non deliberate delay. The Court further said that judiciary is respected not 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. 4. In the matters where action is brought by Government, no person is individually affected and in ultimate analysis it is the public interest which suffe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of procedural red-tape in the process of their making. A certain amount of latitude is, therefore, not impermissible. It is rightly said that those who bear responsibility of Government must have 'a little play at the joints'. Due recognition of these limitations on Governmental functioning-of course, within a reasonable limits-is necessary if the judicial approach is not rendered unrealistic. It would, perhaps, be unfair and unrealistic to put Government and private parties on the same footing in all respects in such matters. Implicit in the very nature of Governmental functioning is procedural delay incidental to the decision making process. In the opinion of the High Court, the conduct of the law-officers of the Government placed the G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mes barred by time, the Court should be slow to ignore delay for the reason that once limitation expires, other party matures his rights on the subject with attainment of finality. Though it cannot be doubted that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing the suiter from putting forth his cause but simultaneously the party on the other hand is also entitled to sit and feel carefree after a particular length of time, getting relieved from persistent and continued litigation. 8. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. No person gains from deliberate delaying a matter by not resorting to take appropriate legal remedy within time but then the words "sufficient cause" show that delay, if any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 5 is whether the appellant acted with reasonable diligence in prosecuting the appeal. This principle still holds good inasmuch as the aforesaid decision of Privy Council as repeatedly been referred to, and, recently in State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok AO and others, AIR 2005 SC 2191. 12. In Vedabai @ Vaijayanatabai Baburao Vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil and others, JT 2001(5) SC 608 the Court said that under Section 5 of Act, 1963 it should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. In the former case consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls for a more cautious approach but in the latt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... State of Karnataka, 2005 NTN (Vol.-2) 243 = AIR 2005 SC 2350 but first appellate authority as well as Tribunal has found that in the case in hand substantial construction was undergone by builder from his own funds i.e. from his own raw material engaging labour contract. He has raised construction over his own land and a small amount of money was deposited by certain prospective buyers to get some booking of the flats and allotment but amount deposited by them as earnest money was not substantial so as to turn construction in question into a "work contract". In this regard, Tribunal has recorded following findings:- 16. The Tribunal has followed decision of Apex Court in M/s Assotech Realty Private Limited Vs. State of U.P. and anoth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
