2017 (7) TMI 1052 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - Held that - No justification on the part of the authorities in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order confirming the order of the original authority is set aside and the matter is remitted to the first appellate authority/Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals-II), Trichy. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The second respondent is directed to entertain the appeal and number the same and decide the issue on merits and in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to both sides and dispose of the appeal within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioner-Company fails to represent the matter for any reason whatsoever, the second respondent is directed to pass orders on merits based on the documents available on record.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Delay in filing appeal, condonation of delay, negligence in filing appeal, interpretation of "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, application of the doctrine of equality before law in condonation of delay.

Analysis:
The primary issue in this Writ Petition was the delay of 41 days in filing an appeal, which was not condoned by the authorities due to the lack of a satisfactory explanation from the petitioner-Company. The petitioner cited the departure of the Finance Manager responsible for excise matters as the reason for the delay, but this explanation was deemed insufficient by the authorities, leading to the dismissal of the condonation of delay application and rejection of the main appeal as time-barred.

The judgment referred to a decision of the Apex Court emphasizing the importance of the phrase "sufficient cause" in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, highlighting the need for a liberal approach to enable substantial justice. The Court noted that refusing to condone delay could result in meritorious matters being dismissed at the outset, defeating the cause of justice. It was emphasized that the doctrine of "every day's delay must be explained" should be applied pragmatically, with a preference for substantial justice over technical considerations.

In light of the Supreme Court decision, the High Court found no justification for the authorities' refusal to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The Writ Petition was allowed, setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter to the first appellate authority for further consideration. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the second respondent was directed to entertain and decide the appeal on its merits within a specified timeframe, ensuring a fair opportunity for both parties to present their case. The Court stressed the importance of treating all litigants equally, including the State, and upheld the principle of administering the law in an even-handed manner to achieve justice without undue technical hindrances.