9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1847X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... patient was suffering from complication of blood flow in the femoral veins which had got compressed. The said fact was never specifically denied or controverted in any manner by the respondent-authorities and it is not that the authorities came to a different conclusion that the certificates issued were incorrect and were only created for making out a sufficient cause. The illness was also of the period after the order was passed in March, 2011 and allegedly communicated in June, 2011. Application was very specific and the delay was sought to be condoned on the ground of illness of his married daughter who had been treated at various hospitals all over the country and had been suffering from blood clot cancer disease. - Tribunal was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eral Sales Tax Act, 1973, vide order dated 13.08.2012 and the appeal against the same was also dismissed on the same ground. The facts of the case would go on to show that the assessment was made on 29.03.2011 in the case of the appellant, who is a proprietary concern and a dealer, trading in iron steel, cement white cement and ACC sheets. Since no appeal was filed against the assessment order, the respondent-authorities imposed a penalty of ₹ 36,26,530/- on 13.08.2012. An appeal was filed before the JETC along with an application for condonation of delay against the order dated 29.03.2011 and the plea taken was that the date of communication of the order was 25.06.2011. The ground for condonation of delay was that the daughter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing of the appeal and he had no intention of doing the same and noticed that the limitation period was of 60 days from the date of communication and though under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the Courts had power, in the totality of the events, did not interfere. The appellant has, thus, raised the following question of law: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Tribunal was justified in not condoning the delay wherein there exists a sufficient cause for the same? In addition to the above question of law, the issue of perversity also arises in the present case as there is no denying the fact that the appellant has placed sufficient material on record before this Court in the form of medical tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry days' delay is not to be explained and that the word 'sufficient cause' is an elastic term and if the explanation offered is not concocted, the case should be decided on merits as substantial justice is the paramount consideration. Reference can also be made to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy others 2013 (12) SCC 649 , which read as under: 15. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are: i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, nonpedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation. xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation. xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
