The Commissioner Commercial Tax Lucknow Vs M/S Lancer Food Products Gautambudh Nagar

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:47491

Court No. - 7

Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 135 of 2011 Revisionist :- The Commissioner Commercial Tax Lucknow Opposite Party :- M/S Lancer Food Products Gautambudh Nagar

¶4

Counsel for Revisionist :- Standing Counsel

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

C.M. Application No. 59171 of 2011

¶7

Heard learned Standing Counsel for the revisionist. None has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party.

¶8

This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the trade tax revision supported with an affidavit.

¶9

This revision has been filed against the order of Commercial Tax Tribunal dated 08.01.2004. The present revision has been filed with a delay of about seven years one month and eight days. The said revision has been filed along with an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit wherein it has been submitted that the judgment and order dated 08.01.2004 was served in the office of the revisionist on 21.01.2004 and thereafter, referred to the Joint Commissioner (High Court Works) Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow for necessary directions and permission for further action. The matter was thereafter referred to Law Department and the Law Department took a decision to file on 15.04.2004 and it was duly communicated to the Joint Commissioner, Trade Tax (High Court Works), U.P., Lucknow. The matter was thereafter sent to the office of the Chief Standing Counsel of the High Court and it was duly allocated to the Standing Counsel on 01.05.2004. The learned Standing Counsel who was given task of preparation of the appeal had numerous other matters pending with him and therefore, the matter remained pending. It is only on 22.09.2009 that the Chief Standing Counsel was requested to allot the file to some other Standing Counsel for drafting and filing of the revision.

¶10

Subsequently, on 22.12.2009, the file was allotted to another Standing Counsel. Despite the aforesaid delay, it was filed only on 28.05.2011 with a delay of seven years one month and eight days. It is the aforesaid facts and circumstances that the revisionist has stated that delay ought to be condoned and the matter be heard on merits.

¶11

This Court has perused the records as well as the explanation offered by the revisionist for the delay in filing the said trade tax revision. Even if the facts narrated in the said affidavit are taken as correct without any demur, it is noticed that there is no explanation for the delay of the five years from 2004 to 22.09.2009 when the same was pending before the Standing Counsel, for the revision to be drafted and filed in this Court. It is during this period, there is no averment that the revisionist took any action or sent any reminder or took any efforts to see that the revision is filed within the statutory prescription of time as provided under the Limitation Act. There is no doubt that the authorities of the Trade Tax Department were fully aware of the fact that there is statutory prescription of 90 days for filing of the trade tax revision and despite communication to the State Counsel for drafting and filing the revision, no effort was made for five years. This unreasonable and unexplained delay does not support the cause of the revisionist. The period of limitation has been prescribed so that the petitions, applications, appeals, revisions etc. are filed within a period prescribed and in case there is any delay in filing the same and sufficient cause is shown, the same can be duly condoned. The delay as indicated in the affidavit filed by the revisionist does not indicate that there was justifiable or any sufficient cause so as to condone the unreasonable long period of delay from 2004 to 2011 when the revision was in fact filed. The delay also affects the party in favour of whom an order already exists and has attained finality, subject to it's challenge before the appropriate Court. To give finality and an end to the litigation, the prescription has been made under the Limitation Act and in this regard the the provisions have to be duly interpreted. Merely because the State has to file a revision, does not give them liberty or leeway to prolong filing of the petitions for years together without indicating any justifiable cause or excuse for the same.

¶12

Accordingly, this Court does not find any justification for condoning the delay of over seven years in filing of the present revision.

¶13

In light of the above, on the ground of limitation, the application for condonation of delay is rejected.

¶14

Accordingly, this revision is consigned to records.

¶15

Order Date :- 12.7.2024/Lokesh Kumar

¶16

[Alok Mathur, J.]

¶17

Digitally signed by :- LOKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

The Commissioner Commercial Tax Lucknow v. M/S Lancer Food Products Gautambudh Nagar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner Commercial Tax Lucknow v. M/S Lancer Food Products Gautambudh Nagar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramkirti and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. State Estate Deptt. Lko. and Others

Nathu Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Govt. Lko. and 6 Others

Mahrajdin Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Food and Supply Lko. and 9 Others

Trinetra Dey and Another Vs Addl. Civil Judge Senior Division Court NO.21 Lko

Maahey Laka Vs Sri Jamal Ahmad Khan and Another

Ram Lakhan and Another Vs Civil Judge (Junior Division ) Court No. 15 Sultanpur and 3 Others