:1: IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3272 OF 2005 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL LODG. NO.1280 OF 2005 The Commissioner of Income Tax. ..Appellant. Vs. M/s. Geoffrey Manners & Co. Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. B.M.Chatterji, Ms. P.P. Bhosale, Mr.A.D.Kango & P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant. Mr.Rajesh Shah for the Respondent. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED : 6TH FEBRUARY,2008. PC : 1. There is a delay of 205 days in preferring the appeal. We have noted in this matter that substantial delay was occasioned as the papers had been sent to the Ministry of Law for drafting the appeal memo. There is now a change in the procedure of drafting the appeals. As the delay in the instant case was occasioned in the Law Ministry and considering the cause shown delay condoned. Office to register the appeal. 2. Another important aspect that has come to our notice is that a large number of appeals are not filed in time on account of non availability of the court fee papers. Argument of revenue is that there are no budgetary allotment made. This has resulted in this court being over burdened with matters, as practically every appeal is being filed with a motion for condonation of delay :2: for one cause or another. Between the months of July and December this bench has disposed of about 1580 motions for condonation of delay which were of the year 2006. This time could have been more gainfully spent in deciding the pending appeals. The pendency is therefore, created by the failure of the department to file appeal in time. During the said period about 1500 appeals were also disposed off. Office has now placed figures which show that as of 5.12.2007 another 2702 motions have been filed and correspondingly the same number of Income Tax Appeals. 3. The court fees are being paid in terms of the court fees as charged by the State enactment. Our attention is invited to the provisions of the Central Excise Act. By an Amendment Act Parliament had introduced Section 35 and provided fixed court fee. We see no reason if it is within the competence of Parliament as to why the Ministry of Finance or the Ministry of Law should not take remedial steps as in the case of Central Excise Act. 4. These observations are necessitated considering the fact that we find that nearly 2500 appeals are filed before this court with 2500-motions for condonation of delay practically every year. In these circumstances, it ought to be in the interest of all stake holders in in the judicial process to remedy the situation. This :3: results in increasing the work load of this court by another 2500 matters every year. We have for the present imposed no costs or minimum costs. 5. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Secretary, Law and the Secretary Finance, Govt. of India. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.)