Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2014 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 846 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxCondonation 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.
|