TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... X U.P. LKO. VERSUS M/S R.C. AND SONS RAKABGANJ LUCKNOW [ 2022 (9) TMI 533 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] , where the delay of 163 days was sought to be explained on the basis of the casual and lethargic attitude of the officials which prevails in the Department, on the part of the Officers concerned. In the instant case the delay is of 250 days even after ignoring the COVID period in terms of judgment of the Apex Court. Considering the aforesaid judgments in the case of M/s. R.C. Sons, and the delay in the instant case of 250 days even after ignoring the COVID period in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court and there being no plausible and cogent reasons for condoning the delay, the application for condonation of delay is rejected. Application dismissed. - Sales/Trade Tax Revision Defective No. - 9 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 15-9-2022 - Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J. For the Revisionist : C.S.C. For the Opposite Party : Durga Prasad Dubey,Sanjieva Shankhdhar ORDER HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. (C.M. Application No.27354 of 2021) Heard learned Standing Counsel for the revisionist and Sri Sanjieva Shankhdhar, learned counsel for the respondent. Learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. Later, the permission was sought for filing of revision which was received from the law department vide sanction letter dated 15.07.2019 and a request subsequently was made in July, 2019 to the office of the learned Chief Standing counsel, High Court, Lucknow for filing of a revision. The file was allotted for drafting after a period of almost one month and it took the learned Standing counsel a period of almost four and half months to file the revision and hence the delayed filing of revision. 8. The delay which often occurs on the part of the department in filing the appeals/revisions has been considered threadbare by the Apex Court in the case of Living Media India Ltd (supra) wherein the Apex Court after placing reliance on various earlier judgments of the Apex Court, including a few over which the learned Standing counsel has also placed reliance, held as under:- 27.It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ernment Departments, State Governments and other public authorities that they must learn to file appeals in time and set their house in order so far as the Legal Department is concerned, more so as technology assists them. This appears to be falling on deaf ears despite costs having been imposed in a number of matters with the direction to recover it from the officers responsible for the delay as we are of the view that these officers must be made accountable. It has not had any salutary effect and that the present matter should have been brought up, really takes the cake! 6. The aforesaid itself shows the casual manner in which the petitioner has approached this Court without any cogent or plausible ground for condonation of delay. In fact, other than the lethargy and incompetence of the petitioner, there is nothing which has been put on record. We have repeatedly discouraged State Governments and public authorities in adopting an approach that they can walk in to the Supreme Court as and when they please ignoring the period of limitation prescribed by the statutes, as if the Limitation statute does not apply to them. In this behalf, suffice to refer to our judgment in State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under:- 2.This is one more case of what we have already categorised as certificate cases and we do not delve further, as the purpose seems just to bring the matter to the Courts to put a closure to the same without giving any cogent explanation for condonation of delay in terms of Postmaster General v. Living Media (India) Ltd. [Postmaster General v. Living Media (India) Ltd., (2012) 3 SCC 563 : (2012) 2 SCC (Civ) 327 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 580 : (2012) 1 SCC (L S) 649]. 3.We have also examined the case on merits despite the aforesaid and find that a correct view has been taken by the Tribunal as the Department itself is treating the assessee in the same manner for subsequent years so far as classification is concerned. 4.We are thus of the view that for both the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is not liable to be entertained. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. 12. Considering the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court what is to be seen is as to whether any plausible reason has been indicated by the revisionist in filing the instant revisions. 13. A perusal of paragraphs 3 to 8 of the application of condonation of delay would indicate that a very cavalie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
