2018 (9) TMI 748 – BOMBAY HIGH COURT – TMI – Condonation of delay of 529 days in filing appeal – failure to remove office objections within the stipulated time i.e. 19.05.2016 – Held that:- If the State is suffering on account of negligence of its officers then it must bring on record action having been taken against such delinquent officers. Nothing has been shown to us that the State has taken action against the officer concerned – there is no reason to condone the delay for the purpose of setting aside the order dated 21.04.2016 passed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master.
–
The Notice of Motion stands dismissed. – Notice of Motion No. 119 of 2018 in Central Excise Appeal (L) No. 54 of 2013 Dated:- 7-9-2018 – M. S. SANKLECHA AND RIYAZ IQBAL CHAGLA, JJ. Ms. P. S. Cardozo, Advocate for the Applicant / Appellant. Mr. Jas Sanghavi, Advocate I/by PDS Legal for the Respondent. P.C. 1 This Motion seeks condonation of 529 days delay in filing the present Notice of Motion that seeks t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
It gives no indication of the date, the panel of Advocates has changed. The affidavit further states that the appellant is a statutory government authority and it has very good chance to succeed in this appeal and, therefore, the order dated 21.04.2016 of the Prothonotary and Senior Master be set aside. 4. We find that the affidavit does not satisfactorily explains the delay. It does not indicate the exact date when the appellant department learnt about the rejection order dated 21.04.2016 passed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master. The only reason set out therein is that there is a change in the panel of Advocates and the appellant is a statutory government authority, responsible for collection of the revenue under the relevant statute. 5. The reasons set out in the said affidavit for the delay are not satisfactory and rather, it reflects casual attitude on the part of the officers of the revenue. It appears that after filing of the appeal and /or engaging a panel Advocate, the off
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
in their functioning by accepting above cause as sufficient. The cause as set out and the explanation as forwarded today, on affidavit and belatedly, reflects total negligence and callousness of the Revenue officials. Their attitude shows that they are not at all vigilant and interested in pursuing the cases filed by the Department involving a tax effect of crores of rupees. They expect the Court to be lenient and liberal and pardon them every time. It is this approach of the Revenue officials which is not only strongly deprecated in the earlier order but this Court has refused to uphold it after it was noticed that this is the position in almost every matter. The aforesaid observations apply equally apply to the present facts. 6. When attention was drawn of the counsel for the Revenue with regard to the aforesaid observations of this Court, she responded by contending that the government is impersonal entity and depend upon its officers to perform their job. Therefore, when the office
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
act that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, 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. 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 redtape in the process. The government departments are unde
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =