9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. 2. Failure of the Commissioner to pass a regular order and violation of principles of natural justice. 3. Acceptance of the explanation for delay in filing the appeal. 4. Comparison with similar judgments from Gujarat High Court and Tribunal regarding passing a speaking order. Analysis: 1. The appellant filed an application for condonation of delay of 57 days in filing the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Commissioner returned the papers to the appellant without passing a regular order, leading to confusion and lack of awareness on the part of the appellant and the counsel. The appellant and counsel contended that they were not informed about the rejection of the appeal until they received a letter. The appellant believed a regular order would be issued, and the counsel was expecting a notice from the Commissioner. The COD application was supported by affidavits from both the appellant and the counsel, stating their genuine belief and lack of negligence in the delay. 2. The Learned SDR argued against accepting the explanation provided in the condonation application, citing inordinate delay in filing the appeal. However, the Tribunal found merit in the submissions made by the counsel and the affidavits filed by the appellant and the counsel. It was noted that the Commissioner's failure to issue a regular order and provide a hearing before rejecting the appeal on limitation amounted to a violation of principles of natural justice. 3. The counsel relied on judgments from the Gujarat High Court and the Tribunal in similar cases, emphasizing the need for the lower authority to pass a speaking order and grant an opportunity of hearing before rejecting an appeal based on limitation. The Tribunal considered these precedents and found that the Commissioner should have given a hearing and passed a speaking order instead of simply returning the papers to the appellant. 4. Considering the confusion and lack of communication between the appellant and the counsel, the Tribunal allowed the COD application and remitted the matter back to the Commissioner. The Commissioner was directed to grant the appellants an opportunity of hearing and reconsider their prayer that the appeal was filed within the statutory limitation. The Commissioner was mandated to dispose of the matter within four months from the receipt of the Tribunal's Order, thereby ensuring a fair and just resolution of the appeal. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of condonation of delay, failure to pass a regular order, acceptance of explanation for delay, and the importance of following principles of natural justice in such legal proceedings.
|
