The appeal filed by the Department was defective and with various discrepancies. The Registrar directed the Department to rectify those defects but the Department failed to rectify the defects and the appeal was dismissed by the Registrar. On a notice of motion the Department sought revival of the appeal after a delay of 1371 days on the ground that the dismissal by the Registrar was not on its merits and that it came to know of the order of rejection only while arguing appeals relating to other assessment years :

Dismissing the notice of motion, that there was no explanation for the delay of 1371 days. The Registrar had been drawing up a list and notifying the appeals regularly and intimating the parties and their advocates through the High Court website that they must attend to these cases or else all consequences including dismissal without adjudication on the merits, would follow. If this fact was known to all practising advocates, including the Departmental advocates, then, no special treatment could be claimed.

By the court : If the number of appeals filed by the Revenue are approximately thousand per year or more, then, the Department is expected to appoint and depute responsible officials and to follow up the legal cases and matters in the court. The officers cannot pass on the buck to some junior level employees or clerical staff. This is routinely happening inasmuch as the Departmental heads are not attending the cases by taking a periodical review of the proceedings or appeals lodged in the court. They hand over the papers to advocates and thereafter are not bothered about the outcome of the appeals. Their attitude shows that they are not at all vigilant and interested in pursuing the cases filed by the Department involving a tax effect of crores of rupees. They expect the court to be lenient and liberal and pardon them every time. This approach of the Departmental officials is strongly deprecated. ( AY. 2003-04 to 2006 -07)