2018 (10) TMI 1551 – BOMBAY HIGH COURT – TMI – Condonation of delay of 639 days in filing appeal – Held that:- The Affidavit states that there is a delay in taking out the Motion seeking to set aside the order dated 25th August 2016 passed by the Prothonotary & Senior Master.
–
The Affidavit in Support does not state that it was not informed and/or not aware of the dismissal of its Appeal in August 2017. Nor does the Affidavit indicate the date when the Respondent for the first time came to know about the date of the rejection of Appeal by the Prothonotary & Senior Master. This date is crucial for considering whether the delay in making out this Application is required to be condoned or not. The change of panel advocates does not absolve that the officers of the Revenue to keep themselves abreact of the proceedings in this Court and/or taking appropriate steps to appoint new advocate for the first panel. Not taking steps in the above regard is itself evidence of negligence on the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
n support states that as there was change in panel counsel handling the matters for the Excise Department in the month of June 2016. The earlier counsel engaged, ceased to be on the panel since 2016. Thereafter, in 2017 with effect from 1st July 2017, the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 came into force resulting in reorganisation of the department. Thus, in the above view, the Affidavit states that there is a delay in taking out the Motion seeking to set aside the order dated 25th August 2016 passed by the Prothonotary & Senior Master. 4. We find that the Affidavit in Support does not state that it was not informed and/or not aware of the dismissal of its Appeal in August 2017. Nor does the Affidavit indicate the date when the Respondent for the first time came to know about the date of the rejection of Appeal by the Prothonotary & Senior Master. This date is crucial for considering whether the delay in making out this Application is required to be condoned or not. The change o
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
in this Court. They hand over the papers to Advocates and thereafter are not bothered about the outcome of these appeals. It is for the Revenue or the Department to take the necessary action but they do not feel obliged to do so. They expect this Court to condone serious lapses 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. 9. This is no explanation for the delay of 1371 day
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =