Venus Mining And Mineral Near Yamaha Agency Shivpuri Mp Pin 473551 Through Partner Ravi Kumar Goyal vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise Bhopal
Held
The Court condoned the delay in filing the MCC, allowing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Court reasoned that the reasons provided for the delay were genuine and bonafide, and it is a settled principle that a litigant should not be made to suffer due to the fault of their counsel. The Court allowed the MCC, thereby restoring W.P. No. 29186/2024 to its original number, subject to the petitioner's counsel undertaking community service. The counsel agreed to visit a mercy home, spend one hour with the inmates, and provide items worth Rs. 10,000/-. A report of this visit is to be submitted within one month. The Court also emphasized the concept of 'Social Audit' and directed copies of the order to be sent to relevant government departments for contemplation.
Facts
The petitioner, Venus Mining and Mineral, through its partner Ravi Kumar Goyal, filed a Misc. Civil Case (MCC) seeking restoration of Writ Petition (W.P.) No. 29186/2024. The original writ petition was dismissed on December 4, 2024, due to an inadvertent default by the petitioner's counsel. The petitioner argued that the default was bonafide and sought condonation of delay in filing the MCC. The respondents are the Principal Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, Bhopal, and others. The MCC was filed after a delay, for which an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was made.
Key Issues
1. Whether the delay in filing the Misc. Civil Case (MCC) for restoration of the Writ Petition (W.P.) No. 29186/2024 should be condoned, considering the reasons provided by the petitioner? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that the delay was caused due to inadvertence and bonafide mistake of their counsel, and therefore, the MCC should be allowed in the interest of justice. They relied on precedents such as M.K. Prasad Vs. P. Arumugam and Dindayal Bansal Vs. Gwalior Nagar Tatha Gram Vikas Pradhikaran, which state that a litigant should not suffer for the fault of their counsel. Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific argument from the respondent/State regarding the condonation of delay or the restoration of the writ petition.
Sections Cited
Section 5
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER Per: Justice Anand Pathak Heard on I.A. No. 9560/2025, which is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. 2 . Counsel for the applicant informed this Court that the delay has been caused in filing of this MCC and because of the reasons assigned in the application, the delay is bonafide and serves cause of justice.
Looking to the reasons assigned in the application and nature of relief claimed in MCC, sufficiency of cause is made out, therefore, in the interest of justice, application(I.A. No.9560/2025) for condonation of delay is allowed and MCC be heard and decided on merits.
The instant MCC has been preferred by the applicants seekin
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.