TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 750X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its website. The appellant, thus, cannot take refuge of lack of knowledge or, at least, means to acquire knowledge, concerning the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The reasons given are not tenable in law insofar as explanation of more than three and a half years delay in approaching the Court is concerned. The delay of 1310 days is not condoned - application dismissed. - SERTA No. 5 of 2021 & C.M. Appl. Nos. 43924 of 2021 with 43925-43927 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 30-3-2022 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER AND HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE POONAM A. BAMBA Appellant Through: Mr. Satish Kumar, Adv. Respondent Through: Ms. Charanya Laxshmi Kumaran, Mr. Yogendra Aldak, Mr. Karan Sachdeva, Mr. Agrim Arora, Mr. Kunal Kapo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o.57931/2017 dated 14.11.2017 in the case of M/s Indraprastha Gas Limited Vs CCE, Delhi-II as the similar issue was involved in respect of Mis Suzuki Motorcycles India Private Limited falling under the jurisdiction CGST Gurugram Commissionerate. 3. That, immediately, a letter dated 08.07.2021 was written to the concerned Division, Naraina for providing the desired documents pertaining to the case file and also the staff was deputed to locate the case file. Also, a letter dated 30.07.2021 and subsequent reminder dated 03.08.2021 were sent to the Hon'ble CESTAT, office for providing certified copy of the said CESTAT Final Order No. 57931/2017 dated 14.11.2017. 4. That as per available records it was noticed that no such order is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said order was delivered at some address of newly created GST regime, but it might have not reached to the proper office due to miscommunication and confusion existing at that time due to sudden change of regime. However, to know about the status of delivery of the CESTAT Final Order, this office has written a letter dated 24.11.2021 to the Registrar, CESTAT, New Delhi to know about the timeline of dispatch of CESTAT Final Order No.57931/2017 dated 14.11.2017. Reply of the same is awaited. 5.2. As would be evident from the extract set out above, although the Tribunal had dismissed the appeal as far back as on 14.11.2017, no attempts were made by the appellant to know the status of its appeal, in which orders had been reserved by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... insofar as explanation of more than three and a half years delay in approaching the Court is concerned. 5.8. The observations made by the Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Bherulal, (2020) 10 SCC 654 , in that behalf, being apposite, are extracted hereafter: 3. No doubt, some leeway is given for the government inefficiencies but the sad part is that the authorities keep on relying on judicial pronouncements for a period of time when technology had not advanced and a greater leeway was given to the Government [ LAO v. Katiji [LAO v. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107 ]]. This position is more than elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Postmaster General v. Living Media (India) Ltd. [Postmaster General v. Living Media (India) Ltd., (2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 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 bona fide 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 government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
