High CourtsDivision Bench(2018) 05 UK CK 0055

COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAX UTTARAKHAND DEHRADUN vs MS ADHISHASI ABHIYANTA TEHRI BANDH

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 11 May 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
K.M. JOSEPH, C.J, SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
COMMERCIAL TAX REVISION No. 15 of 2018 1. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:- i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. of Case crime no.346 of 2018 under Section 420, 467, 4

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 363 words

K .M. Joseph, C.JÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â

1.

There is delay of 1775 days in filing the present  Commercial Tax Revision. In the affidavit filed in support of the Delay Condonation

Application (CLMA No. 5364 of 2018), it is stated that after receiving the copy of the judgment dated 06.03.2013, the matter was discussed at

different levels in the Department. After receiving the proposal on 07.08.2013, the file was produced before the office of the Chief Standing

Counsel on the same day, i.e. on 07.08.2013. As the translated copies of the orders were necessary, the deponent was asked to bring the translated

copies of the orders. On 09.10.2013, the translated copies were made available by the Department. Then it is stated that the then officer did not

allot the file and due to that reason, the delay occurred.  It has been stated that notices (Annexure-1) have been issued to the erring officials.

Thereafter, the files were again re-allotted on 21.12.2016 to Mr. Pradeep Joshi, but as he was busy in some other important work, therefore, CTRs

could not be prepared. It is stated that thereafter, the file was allotted to Mr. C.S. Rawat, Additional Chief Standing Counsel. Â

2.

We may notice at once that in between Paragraph 6, where the date taken is 09.10.2013 and the reallotment of the file on 21.10.2016, nearly three

years have gone-by, but there is no explanation for the same. Thereafter, reference is made in Paragraph 10 to a list of matters pending before this

Hon’ble Court, a committee being constituted, scrutinizing the matters and finding that in only 71 matters out of 171 mattes, substantial questions

of law were present and, thereafter, the revision is filed. Â

3.

We heard Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned counsel for the State / petitioner and Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent.Â

4.

In the circumstances, having gone through the affidavit filed in support of the Application for condonation of delay, we are not convinced that

sufficient reasons have been given to condone the delay. Accordingly, the Application for condonation of delay will stand rejected. Consequently,

the revision will also stand dismissed.Â