2016 (12) TMI 1777 - HC - Customs

Condonation of delay of 696 days in preferring the tax appeal - Section 5 of the Limitation Act - HELD THAT - Considering the fact that earlier the appeal was preferred, however subsequently, the applicant withdrew the same with a liberty to file miscellaneous application for review before the learned Tribunal and thereafter the learned Tribunal has decided and dismissed the said review application vide order dated 17-3-2016 and thereafter against the original order passed by the learned Tribunal, tax appeal has been preferred, the present application is allowed and the delay caused in preferring the tax appeal is hereby condoned.

Summary

Issues: Delay in preferring tax appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act

In this judgment by the Gujarat High Court, the issue at hand was the delay of 696 days in preferring a tax appeal. The applicant had filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay. The court considered the arguments presented by both parties, where Shri Raj Vyas, advocate for the applicant, and Shri Devang Vyas, Assistant Solicitor General of India, representing the respondent. The court noted that the appeal was initially filed but later withdrawn with liberty to file a review application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal subsequently dismissed the review application, leading to the filing of the tax appeal. The court, after hearing both sides and considering the circumstances, allowed the application to condone the delay in preferring the tax appeal. The court made the rule absolute and no costs were awarded in this matter.

This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to limitation periods in legal matters, as well as the provisions under Section 5 of the Limitation Act that allow for the condonation of delay under certain circumstances. The court's decision to condone the delay emphasizes the need for parties to provide valid reasons and justifications for delays in legal proceedings. The withdrawal of the initial appeal and subsequent dismissal of the review application by the Tribunal played a crucial role in the court's decision to allow the condonation of delay in this case. The judgment serves as a reminder for practitioners and litigants to diligently follow procedural requirements and timelines to avoid complications and ensure timely resolution of legal disputes.