TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 846X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. Le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessment year 2006-07, claiming the following questions of law: (i) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Haryana Tax Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeal being barred by limitation as it did not condone the 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? (ii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Haryana Tax Tribunal was right in not appreciating that the appellate authority was wrong in not providing an opportunity to the appellant to plead its case before the assessing authority and the first appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as being supplied by the contractee and it was providing only labour job. The appellant had been filing returns and discharging its obligations, if any, though there was no tax liability as there was no transfer of property in goods. The assessment for the year 2006-07 was framed by the assessing authority ex parte vide order dated March 22, 2010 (annexure A1). The notice was pasted on the last known business address whereas the appellant had already closed its business on March 31, 2008. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the appellate authority who vide order dated June 20, 2011 (annexure A2) dismissed the appeal. Still dissatisfied, the appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal on December 15, 2011 which was barr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time. 15. The expression 'sufficient cause' employed in section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and similar other statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serves the ends of justice. Although, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay, this court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whether delay in filing the special leave petition stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition . . . 7. From the above, 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 show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case. 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 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
