A litigant is expected to be vigilant and diligent. A party who sleeps over his rights and does not act diligently cannot be shown undue indulgence – Bombay High Court dismisses 37 Revenue appeals
It was just a month ago we reported the Bombay High Court while dismissing a large number of Revenue appeals directing the Board to issue instructions to the Department to file appeals within the time stipulated by Law. See
In another batch, the Revenue has lost 37 cases. The High Court came down heavily on the Government's casual approach, observing:-
“No particulars whatsoever are furnished in the affidavit to enable this Court to hold that sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. In all the cases filed by the Department, barring change in the dates, the format is the same and grounds are identical. We are alive to the fact that the Government departments need some time to process the matter and take a decision in regard to filing of appeals. Taking a lenient view though the reasons assigned were not very convincing, we have condoned the delay wherein the period of delay was less than one year. In the present matters, the delay ranges from the period of one year to five years. The very purpose of laying down limitation in a statue is to obtain finality to the order passed. Uncertainty must come to an end. The more the delay the better the explanation for condonation would be expected. We do not expect that every days delay ought to be explained. The courts are expected to take a pragmatic view than a pedantic. However, it cannot be lost sight of that on pronouncement of a judgment and after expiry of the period of limitation as provided under the statute, rights accrue in favour of the other side and the said rights cannot be very easily destroyed if the delay is unexplained and caused on account of inaction and/or negligence on the part of a party applying for condonation of delay. A litigant is expected to be vigilant and diligent. A party who sleeps over his rights and does not act diligently cannot be shown undue indulgence. In all the appeals filed by the Department, the delay has not been satisfactorily explained. No details are furnished which could enable the court to examine accountability. Vague averments are made in the affidavit with no particulars and no proper explanation. The affidavits in these Notices of Motions to the extent they relate to the department are stereotype, and filed in most casual manner”.
Filing an appeal in the High Court seems to be more a skin saving device than anything else. For some officers in the field, it has also become a favourite pastime. There is a tendency amongst these officers to disregard every order from the appellate authority (Tribunal) that has gone in favour of the assessee and wouldn't care a damn even if the law is settled by the Supreme Court; they go about filing appeals in the High Courts and Supreme Courts against such orders.
See