2015 (10) TMI 1924 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Condonation of delay - No satisfactory explanation for condonation - Held that - Order of the 2nd respondent in the delay condonation application preferred by the petitioner does not reflect a consideration of the facts relevant for consideration of the issue of condonation of delay in second appeal under a statutory scheme of litigation. The parameters for exercise of discretion in cases involving condonation of delay have been laid down by the Supreme Court in a number of decisions wherein it is stated that normally when a claim made by an applicant is legally sustainable the delay must be condoned. It is also mandated that when substantial justice and technicalities are pitted against each other then the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. There are cases where the conduct of a party must also be gone into and where it is established that the conduct of the litigant party is not such as would indicate that he was negligent or callous in pursuing the matter before the Forum and further the delay was not so huge as would cause substantial prejudice or harm to the opposite side the situation would normally call for a condonation of the delay. - 2nd respondent has not considered the application for condonation of delay filed by the appellant in accordance with the decisions laid down by the Supreme Court 2015 (1) TMI 1053 - SUPREME COURT . Accordingly I quash Exts.P17 and P18 orders and direct the 2nd respondent to restore the appeals stay applications and the delay condonation applications to file and consider the applications filed for condonation of delay afresh within a period of two months - Delay condoned.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal and condonation of delay.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed an appeal against an assessment order for the assessment year 2010-11. However, there was a delay in filing the appeal before the 2nd respondent. The petitioner also filed a petition for condonation of delay, supported by an affidavit explaining the delay. The 2nd respondent dismissed the delay condonation petition, along with the appeal and stay petition. The High Court observed that the 2nd respondent did not consider the relevant facts for condonation of delay. It referenced Supreme Court decisions emphasizing that when a claim is legally sustainable, delay should be condoned to ensure substantial justice. Factors such as party conduct, absence of substantial prejudice, and the need for a merit-based consideration were highlighted. The Court cited the principles outlined in the judgment of Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, emphasizing a liberal, justice-oriented approach in delay condonation matters.

The High Court noted that the 2nd respondent failed to apply the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the condonation of delay application. Consequently, the Court quashed the orders and directed the 2nd respondent to reconsider the condonation applications, appeals, and stay applications within two months, following the guidelines set by the Supreme Court. The Court also granted a stay on recovery proceedings against the petitioner until the 2nd respondent's new orders are communicated.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment focused on the importance of considering delay condonation applications with a liberal and justice-oriented approach, ensuring that substantial justice prevails over technicalities. The Court emphasized the need to balance the scales of justice for both parties and directed the 2nd respondent to reevaluate the condonation applications in line with the principles established by the Supreme Court.