In Fact, This Court In _Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2017) 84 Taxmann.com 313_ Has Observed As Under

9nma247-18.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 247 OF 2018 INCENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL (L) NO. 122 OF 2015 The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise,Daman Commissionerate ... Applicant. In the matter between : The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise,Daman Commissionerate ... Appellant. v/s. Jai Corporation Ltd.. … Respondent. --- Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly, Advocate a/w. Mr. J. B. Mishra for theApplicant / Appellant. –-- CORAM : M. S. SANKLECHA And RIYAZ IQBAL CHAGLA,JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 07, 2018. P.C. 1.None appears for the Respondent despite service ofnotice. 2.This application seeks condonation of 746 days delay infiling this Motion to sets aside the self-operating order dated10.12.2015 passed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master,rejecting the applicant's appeal under Rule 986 of the Bombay 1/4 9nma247-18.odt High Court (O.S.) Rules. This for failure to remove officeobjections on or before 07.01.2016, as directed by the aboveorder dated 10.12.2015. 3. We have perused the affidavit in support of the Motionfiled by Mr. Sanjay Mukhopadhyay, Assistant Commissioner ofCentral GST & Central Excise, Daman dated 16.02.2018. Theonly reason for the delay of 746 days, as set out in the affidavitis the frequent transfers of officers of the applicantdepartment. In that view the follow up of this appeal after itsfiling, it states, is lost sight of and is, therefore, could not bepursued. It is stated that as new GST Act, 2017 came intoforce, the entire department concerned was reconstituted andno proper steps could be taken to get set aside the order dated10.12.2015. Although the affidavit states that the departmentlearnt about dismissal of the appeal some time in December,2017 on the official website of this court, no particulars of howand in what circumstances the website of the court was visitedand the reason why it was not visited earlier. The reasongiven by the department is not a sufficient explanation for thedelay caused in moving this Motion. In fact it evidencesnegligence on the part of the applicant. 4.In fact, this court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs.Reliance Industries Ltd. (2017) 84 Taxmann.com 313 hasobserved as under : - 2/4 9nma247-18.odt “8. We have found that if the number of appeals filed by theRevenue are approximately thousand per year or more, then,we expect the Revenue to appoint and depute responsibleofficials and to follow up the legal cases and matters in thisCourt. The officers cannot pass on the buck to some juniorlevel employees or clerical staff. This is routinely happeninginasmuch as the Departmental heads have not been attendingthe cases by taking a periodical review of the proceedings orappeals lodged in this Court. They hand over the papers toAdvocates and thereafter are not bothered about the outcomeof these appeals. It is for the Revenue or the Department totake the necessary action but they do not feel obliged to do so.They expect this Court to condone serious lapses in theirfunctioning by accepting above cause as sufficient. The causeas set out and the explanation as forwarded today, onaffidavit and belatedly, reflects total negligence andcallousness of the Revenue officials. Their attitude shows thatthey are not at all vigilant and interested in pursuing thecases filed by the Department involving a tax effect of croresof rupees. They expect the Court to be lenient and liberal andpardon them every time. It is this approach of the Revenueofficials which is not only strongly deprecated in the earlierorder but this Court has refused to uphold it after it wasnoticed that this is the position in almost every matter.” 3/4 spb/ 9nma247-18.odt 3/4 spb/ 9nma247-18.odt 5.The aforesaid observations apply on all fours to thepresent facts. The transfers of the officers of the departmentdoes not absolve the Revenue from prosecuting its appealwith sincerity and vigilantly. The reasons given in theaffidavit in support of the Motion do not inspire confidenceand it evidences the casual manner in which the Revenueprosecutes its appeal before this court. 6.Thus in view of the above, we see no reason tocondone the delay of 746 days for setting aside the order dated10.12.2015 passed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master. 7.Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed. (RIYAZ IQBAL CHAGLA,J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) ….. 4/4