Even In This Hi-Tech “Click Of Mouse” Age Some Govt Officials Yet To Come Out Of Their Love For “Snail Pace” Style Of Working: Delhi HC
|The Delhi High Court in a case has said that even in this hi-tech “click of mouse” age, some government officials are yet to come out of their love for “snail pace” style of working.
The Court remarked this while dismissing a plea filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax seeking a condonation of delay of 498 days in filing an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia held, “Despite anguish expressed by courts at all levels through various judicial pronouncements, no change in work attitude of officials of some of the government departments has taken place. Largely, behind such delays on the part of government agencies in initiating appropriate legal proceedings lies extreme laxity, negligence and dereliction of duties on the part of government officials. Even in this hi-tech “click of mouse” age some of the government officials are yet to come out of their love for “snail pace” style of working. Worst is when such delays are aimed at simply completing formalities so that the government appeals get dismissed on the grounds of limitation, to the designed benefit of the other party.”
The Bench observed that such a negligent or deliberate dormancy on the part of government officials cannot be countenanced.
Senior Standing Counsel Shailendra Singh represented the appellant/revenue while Advocate Ved Jain represented the respondent/company.
In this case, by way of an application brought under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, the appellant/revenue sought condonation of delay of 498 days in filing the appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. Irrespective of the provision quoted in its title, the application was treated as the one under Section 260A(2A) of the Income Tax Act. The application was completely bereft of even circumstances and hence, the respondent/assessee opted not to file a formal reply but strongly opposed the application.
The counsel for the revenue argued that the power to condone delay must be exercised liberally, especially where the appellant was a government body and the exchequer was involved. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent contended that no circumstances were set up in the application to explain such inordinate delay in filing the appeal, therefore, it was not a case warranting liberality in condoning the delay.
The High Court after hearing the counsel for both parties noted, “The appellant/revenue, to expect the least, ought to have explained explicitly the circumstances that led to delay, in the sense that there ought to have been in the very least a broad disclosure of movement of the file to explain such enormous delay of 498 days. But, what to say of that, even the time, if any, spent by the appellant/revenue in obtaining copies of the relevant orders has not been disclosed.”
The Court said that the concerned department of the appellant stocked a cyclostyled proforma of delay condonation applications, which are filed after simply inserting the number of days of delay.
“Can such laxity on the part of one of the litigants be ignored so as to snatch away from the other party a right which accrued to it on account of non-filing of appeal in time? The answer, according to us, has to be in negative”, added the Court.
The Court further observed that the plea of the State that it could not obtain copies or even certified copies in time sounds pathetically absurd and hence is unacceptable.
“We are unable to fathom why the State despite having at its disposal an enormous paraphernalia is unable to act with due expedition. … Whatever be the reason, it is either the loss to the exchequer or abrogation of the valuable rights of the assessee litigating against the State”, said the Court.
The Court also noted that it is high time such government officials are taken to task and penalized to recompense the exchequer, though such exercise can be undertaken in some other appropriate lis. Furthermore, it said that the time has come to take drastic measures qua lethargy caused litigation delays, lest the chaos in judicial functioning percolated further.
“Time has come when due diligence has to replace negligence which pervades some of the government agencies as in the present case, so that justice does not hang at the altar of dereliction, default, negligence and indifference. … We are unable to find any cause, what to say of sufficient cause, explaining delay of 498 days in filing this appeal”, concluded the Court.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the delay condonation application.
Cause Title- Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 4 v. M/s National Fertilizers Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2023:DHC:6017-DB)