Pragati Construction Throug Its Partner Govind Gynoba Makhane vs. The Union Of INDIA Through Its Secretary And Others

Held

The Court decided to condone the delay of not more than 44 days in filing the applications. The reasoning was primarily based on the fact that the delay was not substantial and that the revenue had not raised any serious objections to the condonation. Although the revenue cited several judgments, the Court found them not to be a bar to condoning the delay in this specific instance. The Court found that the applications themselves deserved to be allowed. The operative direction was to allow the Civil Applications, which implies that the delay was condoned and the main RAST petitions would proceed.

Facts

The petitioner, Pragati Construction, through its partner Govind Gynoba Makhane, filed Civil Applications (Nos. 12233 of 2025 and 12290 of 2025) in RAST/30615/2025 and RAST/30607/2025 respectively. The applications sought condonation of delay. The revenue, represented by the Union of India through its Secretary and others, did not raise serious objections to the delay. The delay in filing the applications was stated to be not more than 44 days. The respondent relied on several judgments from the Supreme Court and various High Courts in support of rejecting the applications.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of not more than 44 days in filing the applications should be condoned, considering the absence of serious objections from the revenue. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the delay was minimal and should be condoned, especially as the revenue did not raise significant objections. Revenue's Argument: The revenue, while not raising serious objections to the delay itself, relied on several Supreme Court and High Court judgments to argue for the rejection of the present applications. These judgments, including Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by L.Rs. Vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA), Geeta Rath Vs. State of Odisha & Ors., Board of Control For Cricket, India Vs. Netaji Cricket Club, M/s. Lala Shivnath Rai Sumerchand Confectioner Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner, CGST Delhi-West, New Delhi, Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, TVL Sri Ramakrishna Agencies Vs. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, and S. Murali Sundaram Vs. Jothibai Kannan & Ors., were cited to support their contention against the applications.