2014 (2) TMI 90 - HC - Indian Laws

Condonation of delay - Period of limitation - Date of corrigendum order or date of original order - Held that - By corrigendum order liability of the petitioner has substantially been changed and therefore, in facts of the case, the period of limitation should have been counted from the date of service of the corrigendum order upon the petitioner on 22-12-2010 and thus, in that situation the appellate authority should have held that the appeal was filed within 180 days from the date of receipt of the corrigendum order and therefore, it was within the extended period of limitation. Treating the appeal to be within 180 days, now the appellate authority may reconsider the prayer of condonation of delay in filing the appeal by the petitioner after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thus, the order dated 22-11-2011 is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Calculation of period of limitation for filing an appeal based on the date of corrigendum order versus original order.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the calculation of the period of limitation for filing an appeal. The petitioner's grievance stemmed from the appellate authority computing the limitation period from the date of the original order, resulting in a delay of 237 days. The petitioner argued that if the period was counted from the date of the corrigendum order, the appeal would fall within the 180-day limit. The court agreed with the petitioner, emphasizing that the corrigendum order substantially changed the petitioner's liability. Therefore, the period of limitation should have commenced from the date of service of the corrigendum order. The court held that the appeal was filed within the extended period of limitation and directed the appellate authority to reconsider the condonation of delay prayer after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the order dated 22-11-2011 was set aside, and the matter was scheduled for reconsideration by the appellate authority by a specified date.

This judgment underscores the significance of correctly determining the starting point for calculating the period of limitation in legal proceedings. It highlights the need to consider the impact of subsequent orders, such as corrigendum orders, on the timeline for filing appeals. The court's decision to set aside the original order and allow for a fresh consideration by the appellate authority demonstrates the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to principles of natural justice in legal proceedings. Ultimately, the judgment provides clarity on the appropriate approach to computing limitation periods in cases involving orders that modify substantive aspects of a matter, ensuring equitable treatment for all parties involved.