2000 (11) TMI 1086 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Delay in filing appeal - Held that - Appeal allowed. A perusal of the application shows that the reason for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was that after the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Lucknow Zone, disposed of the appeal, the order was despatched to a different authority and at a different place, the State Representative at Agra who did not forward the same to the correct place and that resulted in the delay which was beyond the control of the appellants. On this ground the Tribunal has rightly exercised its discretion to condone the delay. Before us the order of the Tribunal is not shown to be perverse or suffering from the vice of violation of principles of natural justice.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the Trade Tax Tribunal.
2. Judicial review by the High Court of a decision to condone delay.
3. Application of principles of natural justice in condonation of delay cases.

Analysis:
1. The Allahabad High Court initially ruled that an appeal was barred by time due to a significant delay in filing. The department later applied for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act. However, the High Court found the application insufficient as it lacked grounds for condonation and failed to explain the cause of delay adequately. The Tribunal introduced new facts and grounds for condonation not present in the original application. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the importance of showing sufficient cause for condoning delay.

2. The department appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court's decision. The Supreme Court, after hearing both parties, reviewed the case. The appeal was against the High Court's order quashing the Tribunal's decision to condone the delay. The Supreme Court highlighted that when a statutory authority, like the Tribunal, exercises discretion to condone delay based on reasons provided, it should not be subject to judicial review unless the decision is perverse or violates natural justice principles.

3. Upon examining the merits of the case, the Supreme Court found that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the order being dispatched to the wrong authority and place by the State Representative, causing a delay beyond the control of the appellants. The Court determined that the Tribunal had appropriately exercised its discretion in condoning the delay based on these reasons. Finding no perversity or violation of natural justice in the Tribunal's decision, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and reinstated the Tribunal's decision to admit the appeal.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of statutory authorities' discretion in condoning delay and limiting judicial review to cases of perversity or violation of natural justice.