TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 1171
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e informed that this judgment would give rise to refund in favour of the assessee to the tune of Rs. 4.50 crores (and a further refund of Rs. 4.20 crores in the connected appeal). 3. Since there was substantial delay in filing the Tax Appeal, the State preferred the Civil Application for condonation of delay. In the application, in order to seek condonation of delay, following averments were made: "4. The applicant further submits that to file the Tax appeal before this Hon'ble Court, the applicant has to undergo certain administrative procedure mentioned below. The order was passed by the learned Tribunal on 13.08.2015 and the certified copy was received on 27.08.2015. 5. After receiving the judgment/order from the learned Tribunal, opinions of several officers are sought as whether or not to file the appeal. Thereafter, the commercial tax department sent a proposal to the Finance Department for approval of the Government to file the Tax Appeal. The approval from the Legal Department was received on 14.12.2015 and thereafter, the approval from the Finance Department was received on 22.12.2015. After receiving the approval, the office of the government Pleader requested f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 23.01.2016 it was discovered that the copies of the order passed by the Assessing Authority and First Apppeallate Authority were not available. Hence, the same were called for on 23.01.2016. The relevant documents were supplied to the GP Office on 25.04.2016. It is further submitted before this Hon'ble Court that as the issue in the present Tax Appeal was similar to one JTC Ltd. involving disallowance of Input Tax Credit for the goods that are sent out of the State of Gujarat for further processing and thereafter being brought back to the State of Gujarat, the relevant papers of JTC Ltd. were also being called for. Both the sets of papers were sent by the VAT Department in the month of April 2016. However, is informed that inadvertently the papers were misplaced in the office of the Government Pleader and hence the same could not reach the concerned Law Officer for drafting and therefore appropriate draft of the Tax Appeal was not prepared. Thereafter, the office of the Government Pleader contacted the concerned officials of the VAT Department. In this regard, the second set of papers along with the papers of JTC Ltd. was immediately handed over to the office of the Government....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is respect, counsel relied on the decision of Supreme Court in case of Basawaraj and Ors. v. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer reported in AIR 2014 SC 746 and of Bombay High Court in case of reported in (2016) 93 VST 387 (Bom). 8. We have taken note of the explanation offered by the applicant for condoning the delay caused in filing the Tax Appeal. It is true that the delay is substantial. Nevertheless, the nature of delay must been seen in light of facts of each case and particularly the explanation offered by the applicant. In the present case, we find that after the judgment was delivered by the Tribunal and a copy thereof was available with the department, the procedure was undertaken to challenge the same before the High Court. However, the appeal could not be presented because of various reasons cited in the delay condonation application and further amplified in the additional affidavit. It is also pointed out that the papers were missing in the office of the Government Pleader for some time which also contributed partly to the delay. Since this explanation is forthcoming on oath and when the revenue effect involved in the Tax Appeals is substantial, we would accept the exp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 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 the State appeal without consideration on merits. The applicant has correctly....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oned 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 crosspurposes with it. It was, therefore, held that in assessing what constitutes sufficient cause for purposes of Section 5, it might, perhaps, be somewhat unrealis....