Repeated appeal on a dismissed case - Supreme Court suggests that the officer should have been more careful
A Revenue appeal was dismissed for an inordinate delay of 645 days! After some time the Revenue files another appeal in the same case. Obviously there were two orders passed by the Tribunal one dated 16th April 2004 which we will call case No. 1 and another dated 20th April, 2004, which we call case No. 2. The appeal against case No. 1 was filed and dismissed by the Supreme Court on 3rd July, 2006. There is now another appeal filed against the same order. Obviously the Supreme Court wanted to know how the Revenue could file an appeal when its appeal was already dismissed.
The affidavit filed by the CBEC explains it.
Actually this appeal was to be against case No. 2, but, inadvertently, the approved draft civil appeal petition against the case No. 1, was annexed.
The Supreme Court was magnanimously mild on the callous department and observed that the
Department and the officer ought to have been careful. He ought to have known that the appeal had already been filed against order dated 16th April, 2004.
The Supreme Court permitted this faulty appeal to be withdrawn but left it open to the department to take such action against the officer and/or such steps against order dated 20th April, 2004, as it may be advised.
What a sad state of affairs in the premier Revenue collecting department of the government! They simply don't know what order they are appealing against - and at the highest judicial forum in the country. If this is the respect they have for the Supreme Court, you can imagine the contempt with which they would be treating other judicial forums.
If at all there is any useful work, they can perform, it is defending the cases in the courts, and they miserably fail in this responsibility. While the champagne flowing after the 'targets' are met, by means fair or foul, they should start seriously planning to take the courts seriously.
See