Himachal Pradesh High Court
Unknown vs Hongo India Private Limited And Another on 19 March, 2018
Bench: Sanjay Karol, Ajay Mohan Goel
CMP(M) No. 1371 of 2017 .
19.03.2018 Present: Mr.Ashok Sharma, Advocate General, with M/s Ranjan Sharma, Adarsh Sharma, Ms.Rita Goswami, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr.J.K.Verma, Deputy Advocate General, for the applicants- petitioners.
Mr.Arjun K.Lall, Advocate, for the respondent-non applicant.
Seeking reliance upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise vs. Hongo India Private Limited and another, (2009) 5 SCC 791, Mr.Arjun K. Lall, learned counsel, with vehemence, opposes the application seeking condonation of delay of more than two years and nine months.
Our specific attention is invited to Section 48 of the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
Faced with the situation, learned Advocate General, seeks time to assist the Court. Prayer allowed.
Hypothetically agreeing with the submissions made by Mr.Arjun K. Lall, learned counsel, we notice that State exchequer might be put to great loss, as the revenue involved in the present petition, is more than `58,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Eight Lacs).
We direct the Secretary (Excise & Taxation), to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, to file his personal affidavit indicating the number of applications/revisions preferred by the State, beyond the period of limitation, so prescribed under Section 48 of the Act. Also reasons thereof and why no action was taken against the erring officers/officials.
We expect the said applicant-petitioner to have initiated action, in accordance with law.
::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2018 23:26:43 :::HCHPIn CWP No.1498 of 2017, titled as State of H.P. & .
another vs. Raju Ram, decided on 24.07.2017, we had emphasized and reiterated the importance and significance of enforcing the Litigation Policy, formulated by the State.
We had noticed that a High Power Committee at the highest level was under an obligation to monitor implementation of the policy and hold the delinquent officer/official accountable and responsible.
The purpose of implementing the Litigation Policy is not only to check docket explosion but to ensure delivery of timely justice to all concerned, be it a citizen or the mighty State.
Needful be positively done within a period of two weeks.
List on 09.04.2018. In the meanwhile, rejoinder, if any, be also filed.
(Sanjay Karol), Acting Chief Justice.
(Ajay Mohan Goel),
March 19, 2018 Judge.
(Purohit)
::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2018 23:26:43 :::HCHP