w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Commissioner, Commercial Taxes U.P. Lucknow v/s M/s. Narain Vegetable Products Sitapur

    Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 124487 of 2014, Trade Tax Revision Defective No. 139 of 2014
    Decided On, 13 February 2020
    At, High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
    For the Appearing Parties: Mudit Agarwal, Advocate.

Judgment Text

Heard Sri Rohit Nandan Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Mudit Agarwal for the respondent.

2. This revision under Section 58 (1) of U.P. VAT Act has been filed against the judgment and order dated 15.7.2010 passed by learned Trade Tax Tribunal, Lucknow in Second Appeal No.56 / 2002 (Assessment Year 1974-75) Order under Rule 41(7) of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules, with a delay of three years, seven months and twelve days.

3. Application for condonation of delay has been filed giving reasons for the delay in filing the revision. The affidavit discloses that the matter has been considered at various levels and after one and half years the file was sent to the State Law Officer on 24.1.2012 and the same was filed on 6.2.2014. There are large gaps in the affidavit which have remained unexplained and the reasons have not been indicated with regard to the delay. Even after due consideration by the competent authority where decision was taken to file the revision still the same was filed by a delay of more than one and half years.

4. Looking into the reasons shown in the affidavit, I am of the considered view that the delay has not been satisfactorily explained and the State cannot take excuse of the deficiencies in administration and the delay of three years, seven months and twelve days is not liable to be condoned in the facts of the present case.

5. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Administrator, Jammu Municipality and another Vs. M/s Swarn Theatre and others passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil), Diary No.(s). 3097/2018 on 17.1.2020 in similar circumstances has observed as under:-

"The highest Court of the land cannot be a walk in place, more so for State Governments to file any time irrespective of period of limitation prescribed. To blame it on the inefficiency of the administration is no more a good excuses in view of the judgment in the case of Post Master General and others v. Living Media Limited Ltd. and Anr., (2012) 3 SCC 563.

We thus dismiss the applications for condonation of delay in filing and refiling and direct the State administration to hold an inquiry into the aspect as to who is responsible for such inordinate delay and take suitable action against the officers concerned.

The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.

The compliance report be filed within six weeks and the Registrar to ensure that the same is taken on record."

6. In light of the above, the application for condonation of delay is rejected and the Principal Secretary (Tax and Registration), State of U.P. is direct

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ed to hold an inquiry into this aspect within a reasonable period and file compliance report within six weeks. before the Registrar, who shall ensure that the same is taken on record. 7. Consequently, this time barred revision also stands dismissed. 8. Consign to records.