STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. SWET ZINK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application under section 5 of the Limitation Act has been preferred by the applicant-State of Gujarat to condone the huge delay of 1205 days in preferring the Tax Appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad dated February 4, 2010 in Second Appeal No. 966 of 2009. Shri Jaimin Gandhi, learned Additional Government Pleader, has vehemently submitted that the applicant has a good meritorious case. It is submitted that the question involved in the tax appeal is a pure question of law and would have recurring effect. It is submitted that in view of the impugned decision of the Tribunal the cumulative effect in the appeal would be Rs. 17 lakhs and, therefore, it is requested to take a liberal view and condone the delay. The learned Additional Government Pleader has relied upon the decisions of the honourable Supreme Court in the cases of G. Ramegowda v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, 1988 AIR(SC) 897 N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, 1998 AIR(SC) 3222 and State of Haryana v. Chandramani, 1996 3 SCC 132

(2.) Heard Shri Jaimin Gandhi, learned Additional Government Pleader and considered the grounds set out in the application in support of the prayer to condone the delay. At the outset, it is required to be noted that there is a huge delay of 1205 days in preferring the tax appeal. From the averments made in the application in support of the prayer to condone the delay, it appears that no specific particulars are given explaining the huge delay and as such the same can be said to be as vague as it can be. In any case, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the huge delay of more than 1205 days has not been properly and sufficiently explained.

(3.) Identical question came to be considered by the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Lanka Venkateswarlu (D) by L.Rs. v. State of A.P., 2011 AIR(SC) 1199 In the said decision, the honourable Supreme Court considered the earlier decision in the case of N. Balakrishnan, 1998 AIR(SC) 3222 which has been relied upon by the learned Additional Government Pleader. While considering the question of condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act in filing the appeal and considering the earlier various decisions of the honourable Supreme Court it is held and observed by the honourable Supreme Court that while considering the applications for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the courts do not enjoy unlimited and unbridled discretionary powers. All discretionary powers, especially judicial powers, have to be exercised within reasonable bounds, known to the law. It is further observed that such concepts such as liberal approach, justice oriented approach, substantial justice cannot be employed to jettison the substantial law of limitation especially, in cases where the court concludes that there is no justification for the delay. In the said decision before the honourable Supreme Court, the delay was sought to be condoned, which was caused by the inefficiency and ineptitude of the Government Pleaders and the honourable Supreme Court observing the above, refused to condone the delay.