Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Meghji Girdharilal

S.K. Dubey, J.—The Commissioner, M.P., Bhopal, has preferred this application u/s 29 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (''the Act'') for granting a certificate for leave for filing an appeal before the Supreme Court against the judgment delivered by this Court in CWT v. Meghji Girdharilal [Misc. Civil Case No. 179 of 1984] decided on 22-7-1985. The application u/s 29(1) of the Act filed by the applicant is barred by 27 days. Initially, no application was filed by the applicant to condone delay. When the matter came up for hearing on admission, the applicant prayed for time. Ultimately, an application IA No. 275 of 1986 was filed on 16-1-1986, which was supported by an affidavit of the Upper Division Clerk in the office of the Commissioner, M.P., Bhopal. The matter came before this Court for hearing on 21-8-1987. After hearing the counsel, this Court directed the applicant to furnish necessary details and particulars regarding the date on which the SLP before the Supreme Court was filed and when it was detected that the petition for leave to appeal should have been filed and thereafter when it was withdrawn. The applicant prayed for time; but after giving a number of opportunities, no particulars were furnished. Not only this, the applicant has not filed any memo of SLP filed before the Supreme Court nor any affidavit of any counsel or the departmental head, who passed the order for filing the SLP before the Supreme Court, to the effect that he or the counsel acted bona fidely and diligently and prosecuted the SLP before the Supreme Court. Shri R.C. Mukati, the learned counsel for the applicant, contended that the matter involves a substantial question of law of public importance. As such, the delay, if any, caused, deserves to be condoned. He placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, and also contended that there are differences of opinion on the point involved of various High Courts with the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Tarabai Kanakmal, and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Narbharam Popat Bhai and Sons,

Shri S.C. Goyal, the learned counsel for the respondent, opposed the application.

After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, we have come to the conclusion that the application filed u/s 29 deserves to be dismissed, as barred by time. A bare reading of section 29 clearly shows that after the judgment of the High Court is delivered in a case stated u/s 27 of the Act, in that case, if the High Court certifies it as a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court, an appeal lies to the Supreme Court. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any confusion in filing an appeal before the Supreme Court without first approaching the High Court for a certificate. Moreover, all litigants including the State as a litigant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even-handed manner. There is no warrant for according a step motherly treatment when the State is the applicant praying for condonation of delay. In fact, on account of an impersonal machinery and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note-making file pushing and passing on the buck ethos, delay on part of the State is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve. In any event, the State, which represents the collective cause of the community, does not deserve a litigant non grate status. So also the approach of the Courts must be to do even-handed justice on merits in preference to the approach, which scuttles a decision on merits- See Mst. Katiji''s case (supra). It is true that after considering the facts of the case and observing as above, the Apex Court in that case condoned the delay but in the present facts and circumstances of the case, we are not satisfied that the applicant had made out a sufficient cause, though a number of opportunities were afforded to the applicant. In fact the applicant has come forward with a case, which was not at all there, i.e., no SLP was either filed before the Supreme Court or was withdrawn. As such, the statement supported by an affidavit of a clerk cannot be accepted nor an indulgence can be shown in such state of affairs. Moreover, if it was true, then with the petition itself, the department could have filed an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act to condone delay but when the matter came up before the Court for admission, the applicant prayed for time and after seeking a long time, moved an application by making a ground, which did not at all exist. Therefore, this Court on 21-8-1987, ordered to furnish particulars but the applicant failed to supply the particulars and insisted upon by submitting that in the matters of the Government, a strict view should not be taken. We are not satisfied with this submission of the learned counsel for the applicant. A Government or an authority cannot be given a preferential treatment than an ordinary litigant and the Government was bound to explain each day''s delay. Moreover, if the department acted on the advice of some senior official or the counsel, the department at least ought to have filed an affidavit to that effect but as no affidavit has been filed, it cannot be said that the department acted bona fidely or that sufficient cause to condone delay has been made out. In the result, this petition u/s 29 is dismissed as barred by time. No order as to costs.