2014 (7) TMI 846 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Condonation of delay - delay caused on account of misguidance of the chartered accountant which misguided itself with provision of section 33(6) instead of section 33(5) of the Act that the appeal can be filed in 180 days instead of 60 days - Tribunal denied condonation - Whether the Tribunal was right in declining to condone the delay of 70 days in filing the appeal by the appellant - Held that - it emerges that the law of limitation has been enacted which is based on public policy so as to prescribe time-limit for availing of legal remedy for redressal of the injury caused. The purpose behind enacting law of limitation is not to destroy the rights of the parties but to see that the uncertainty should not prevail for unlimited period. Under section 5 of the 1963 Act, the courts are empowered to condone the delay where a party approaching the court belatedly shows sufficient cause for not availing the remedy within the prescribed period. 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 plea taken by the appellant was that there is a different period of limitation prescribed under the Act. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the limitation for filing the appeal where the assessee was aggrieved by the first appellate authority was 60 days whereas in case of the Department is 180 days. It was wrongly advised to the appellant that the delay in filing the appeal was 180 days. It was under those circumstances that the delay of 70 days had occurred in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the explanation furnished by the appellant being plausible leads to the conclusion that there was sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal. Once that was so, the application for condonation of delay ought to have been allowed. - Tribunal was not right in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law are answered by holding that there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. As a sequel, the appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal - Delay condoned.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing the appeal by the appellant.
2. Legal position regarding condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
3. Interpretation of "sufficient cause" under section 5 of the Limitation Act.
4. Applicability of the law of limitation in preserving legal remedies.
5. Judicial discretion in condoning delay based on individual facts.
6. Examination of circumstances for establishing sufficient cause in each case.

Issue 1:
The primary issue in this judgment revolves around the delay of 70 days in filing the appeal by the appellant. The Tribunal had declined to condone the delay, leading to the question of whether there was sufficient cause for the delay.

Issue 2:
The judgment extensively examines the legal position regarding the condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Citing the Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries case, it emphasizes the public policy foundation of limitation laws to prevent dilatory tactics and ensure timely legal remedies.

Issue 3:
The interpretation of "sufficient cause" under section 5 of the Limitation Act is crucial in this judgment. The court underscores that the existence of sufficient cause for delay is fact-specific, and no rigid rule can be applied universally.

Issue 4:
The judgment highlights the purpose of the law of limitation, emphasizing that it aims to preserve legal remedies within a specified time frame without destroying parties' rights. The courts are empowered to condone delay where sufficient cause is demonstrated.

Issue 5:
Judicial discretion in condoning delay is discussed, with an emphasis on adopting a liberal approach for short delays and a stricter stance for prolonged delays. The court is required to exercise discretion based on individual circumstances of each case.

Issue 6:
The judgment underscores that the determination of whether there is sufficient cause for delay is a question of fact, dependent on the specific circumstances of each case. The appellant's explanation for the delay, based on being misinformed about the correct appeal filing timeline, was deemed plausible, leading to the conclusion that there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

In conclusion, the court held that the Tribunal erred in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal. It was decided that there was sufficient cause for the delay, and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for further adjudication on merits in accordance with the law.