9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeal. It appears that condonation of delay was sought for on medical reasons. Although, the appellate authority did not disbelieve the medical certificate, however, had arrived at a conclusion since the petitioner could carry on business, there was no reason for the petitioner not to file the appeal within the prescribed period. Despite observing as such, the Appellate Authority, however, proceeded to dismiss the appeal by holding that there is no provision laid down under Section 107 of the said Act to accept an appeal after one month from the prescribed period of limitation. The Appellate Authority had chosen not to question the medical certificate produced by the petitioner. Once, the Appellate Authority had accepted the medical cert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o as the said Act ), issued in Form DRC-07, an appeal was filed before the Appellate Authority on 6th February, 2024. Admittedly, the said appeal was barred by limitation. 3. Pursuant to a show cause dated 16th February, 2024, the petitioner had not only submitted a response explaining the delay in filing the appeal but also appeared before the Appellate Authority and had made submission explaining the delay. 4. Records reveal that the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the said Act, by the order impugned was, inter alia, pleased to reject the said appeal on the grounds that there is no provision under Section 107 of the said Act to accept the appeal after one month of prescribed period of limitation as provided under Section 107 (4) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed period. Despite observing as such, the Appellate Authority, however, proceeded to dismiss the appeal by holding that there is no provision laid down under Section 107 of the said Act to accept an appeal after one month from the prescribed period of limitation. In this context I may note that the issue whether an appeal can be entertained beyond one month from the prescribed period of limitation has already been decided by the Hon ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of S. K. Chakraborty Sons (supra). 8. Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the view that the Appellate Authority had failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it in refusing to consider the application for condonation of delay on the ground that the same was fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
