Full Text
VATAPPEAL5/2017&CM APPL.18565/2017&18568/2017
COMMISSIONER,TRADEANDTAXES,DELHI ^ppetot
Through; Mr. Gautam Narayan, ASC with Mr. R.A.Iyer,Advocate
Through; None
COMMISSIONER.TRADEAND TAXES,DELHI
Through; Mr. Gautam Narayan, ASC with Mr.
COMMISSIONER,TRADEANDTAXES,DELHL....Appetot
Through; Mr. Gautam Narayan, ASC witn Mr.
VATAppealNOS.Sof2017&connectedmatters
2017:DHC:8231-DB
+ VAT APPEAL8/2017& CM APPL.18578/2017& 18581/2017
COMMISSIONER,TRADE AND TAXES,DELHI.....Appellant
Through: Mr. Gautam Narayan, ASC with Mr.
Through: None
COMMISSIONER,TRADE AND TAXES,DELHI Appellant
Through: Mr. Gautam Narayan, ASC with Mr.
Through: None
1.Allowed,subjectto alljustexceptions.
CM Nos. 18577/2017(in VAT Appeal 7/20171 & 18586/2017(in VAT
Anneal9/2017) j ^
2.For the reasons stated therein,the applications are allowed.The delay ot
20daysinre-filingtheappealiscondoned.Theapplicationsaredisposed of.
VATAppealNos.5of2017&connectedmatters Page2of4
CM Nos. 18567/2017 (in VAT Appeal 5/2017), 18571/2017 (in VAT
Appeal 6/2017^. 18575/2017 (in VAT Appeal 7/2017), 18580/2017 (in
VAT Appeal8/2017^ 18584/2017(in VAT Appeal9/2017)
ORDER
3. There is a delay in each ofthese appeals of224 days,266 days and 236 days, 224 days and 236 days respectively. These applications seeking condonation ofthe inordinate delay do notseekto explain every day's delay. Even the reasons given are only on grounds of the administrative inefficiency ofthe Department.Itis urged by Mr.Gautam Narayan,learned counsel for the Appellant that because ofthe change in the panel counsel, there was a delay again for the appeals being prepared and filed. The Court is unable to acceptthese excuses.
4. The Supreme Court has in State ofU.P. v. Amar Nath Yadav(2014)2 see 422 reiterated its earlier decision in Postmaster General v. Living MediaIndiaLimited(2012)3See563where itwasobserved as under: "In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation ofdelay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the Goveminent Departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should notbeswirledforthe benefitofafew."
5. There being no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals,the applications are dismissed. All other pending applications are also dismissed.Consequently,the appealsarealso dismissed. Page3of[4] VATAppealNos.5of2017& connectedmatters
6. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the Appellant that the question raised in these appeals has already been admitted in another appeal filed by the Department. That question will be considered in the said appeal in accordance with law.
S.MURALIDHAR,J CHANDER SHEKHAR,J MAY 16,2017 tp VATAppealNos.5of2017&connectedmatters Page4of[4]