TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... files were allotted to the State Counsel in the year 2003, even then the revisionist must have contacted the State Counsel / office of the Chief Standing Counsel to know about the fate/ progress of the aforesaid revision, but nothing has been seriously done on the part of the revisionist with regard to filing of the revision. Therefore, the explanation given by the revisionist for condonation of delay cannot be said to be the sufficient reasons. Delay in filing instant revision cannot be condoned - application for condonation rejected - revision also dismissed being barred by the time. - Civil Misc. Application No.37073 of 2011 Trade Tax Revision Defective No. 88 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 23-11-2017 - Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt Works), U.P., Lucknow. It has also been submitted by learned Standing Counsel that the Law Department of the State Government vide G.O. dated 02.01.2003 opined that the judgment order dated 15.06.2002 of the Commercial Tax Tribunal so far as it relates to Second Appeal No.153 of 2001 (Under Section 4-A) shall be challenged before the Hon'ble Court in Commercial Tax Revision. Consequently, the necessary permission for preferring the Commercial Tax Revision was also given by the Law Department in the G.O. dated 02.01.2003. 6. Learned Standing Counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that the State Counsel who was allotted as many as 258 files including the revision in question for preparation and filing of Trade Tax Revis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owever submitted that the delay in filing the revision may be condoned if it is found that there is no malafide intention on the part of the revisionist and also no deliberate delay in filing the revision. While submitting the aforesaid submission he placed reliance of para-10 of the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, wherein the details of some judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court are given. 8. On the other hand, Sri Pradeep Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that as per own admission of the revisionist the order of learned Tribunal was served upon the department on 09.07.2002 and the limitation for filing the revision was on 07.10.2002, but there is nothing in the affidavit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government. 29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The governmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the file of that case and find that both the cases are almost similar. Therefore, there is no reason to take a different view. We thus, dismissed this SLP on the ground of delay. 11. Sri Agarwal has further placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner, commercial Tax, U.P., Lucknow vs. Jagdish Prasand and Sons reported in 2015 NTN (Vol. 57) 47, wherein this Hon'ble Court after relying upon the case of Postmaster General (Supra) dismissed the application for condonation of delay in filing the revision wherein the revision was filed beyond the time of 175 days. 12. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 13. In the instant case, the delay is of about eight years, eig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that the department of Trade Tax, the revisionist hereto, has taken the leniency of this Court in condoning the delay for granted, which cannot be accepted in any manner whatsoever. The case laws cited by the learned Standing Counsel for the revisionist would not be applicable in the present case. 16. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Postmaster General (Supra) and State of U.P. vs. Amar Nath Yadav (Supra) squarely covers the issue of limitation. Not only the above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically held that the issue of limitation should not be dealt with lightly or in cursory manner. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Postmaste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
