2019 (11) TMI 1400 - HC - Indian Laws

Condonation of delay of four months in filing reference application - Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 - Sufficient cause for delay or not - Levy of Entry Tax - MP Entry Tax Act - period 01.04.2000 to 31.03.2001 - HELD THAT - The meaning to be assigned to the expression sufficient cause occurring in Section 5 of the 1963 Act should be such so as to do substantial justice between the parties. The existence of sufficient cause depends upon facts of each case and no hard and fast rule can be applied in deciding such cases. The Supreme Court in ORIENTAL AROMA CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ANR. 2010 (2) TMI 1121 - SUPREME COURT and RB. RAMLINGAM VERSUS RB. BHUVANESWARI 2009 (1) TMI 548 - SUPREME COURT noticed that the Courts should adopt liberal approach where delay is of short period whereas the proof required should be strict where the delay is inordinate. Further it was also observed that judgments dealing with the condonation of delay may not lay down any standard or objective test but is purely an individualistic test. The court is required to examine while adjudicating the matter relating to condonation of delay on exercising judicial discretion on individual facts involved therein - The petitioner is required to establish that in spite of acting with due care and caution the delay had occurred due to circumstances beyond his control and was inevitable. The explanation furnished by the petitioner as noticed hereinbefore being plausible leads to the conclusion that there was sufficient cause for delay in filing the reference application. Once that was so the application for condonation of delay ought to have been allowed. The delay of four months in filing reference application is condoned by holding that there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay - the matter is remitted to the Board/respondent No.2 to redecide the reference application in accordance with law - condonation application allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Condonation of delay in filing a reference application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 before the M.P. Commercial Tax Appellate Board.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Condonation of Delay
The petitioner challenged the order of the M.P. Commercial Tax Appellate Board, which declined to condone the delay in filing a reference application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The delay in filing the application was four months, and the Board dismissed it on the grounds that the reasons for the delay were not sufficiently explained. The petitioner argued that the delay was due to bona fide reasons, including the sudden resignation of a key personnel who was aware of the case details. The petitioner contended that the Board took a pedantic approach in dismissing the application.

Analysis:
The High Court examined the legal position regarding the condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Act of 1963. Referring to previous judgments, the Court emphasized that the law of limitation is based on public policy to prevent dilatory tactics. The Court highlighted that the term "sufficient cause" in Section 5 allows for a liberal approach in condoning short delays and a stricter approach for longer delays. The Court noted that the existence of sufficient cause depends on the facts of each case and that no rigid rule can be applied.

Judgment:
The High Court found the explanation provided by the petitioner for the delay to be plausible and held that there was sufficient cause for condonation of the delay. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order of the Board and condoned the four-month delay in filing the reference application. The matter was remitted back to the Board for a fresh decision in accordance with the law. The Court emphasized the need for a case-specific analysis in condonation of delay matters, based on individual circumstances and the principle of substantial justice.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the legal issues involved and the High Court's reasoning in deciding the case.