Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Bhawani Industries (P) Ltd. Versus The State of Punjab

2016 (5) TMI 887 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Condonation of delay - 120 days - Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - Whether the Ld. Tribunal was justified in not condoning the delay wherein there exists a sufficient cause for the same - Held that:- the appellant submitted that the order dated 31.1.2013 passed by the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Mobile Wing) was received by the appellant on 14.5.2013 and the appeal was to be filed on or before 14.6.2013. The appellant after receiving the order handed over the complete file .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to the circumstances beyond the control of the appellant. The explanation furnished by the appellant appears to be plausible and, therefore, leads to the conclusion that there was sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal. Once that was so, the delay in filing the appeal before the DETC(A) deserves to be condoned and appeal heard on merits by the DETC(A). Appeal allowed by way of remend - VATAP No. 56 of 2015 (O&M) - Dated:- 4-5-2016 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MR. SHEKHER DHAWAN, JJ. For .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case the Ld. Tribunal was justified in not condoning the delay wherein there exists a sufficient cause for the same? 2. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The appellant is engaged in the business of Iron and Steel goods at Mandi Gobindgarh having TIN No. 03221136481. It had placed an order for import of heavy melting scrap from United States of America. The said goods en .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the appellant on 14.5.2013 after a passage of more than four months. Thereafter, it handed over the papers to Shri Subhash Chander Satija, Advocate. However, due to liver ailment, the said counsel fell seriously ill and despite treatment from various doctors, he could not recover. He was referred to MIOT Hospital, Chennai for liver transplant where he remained admitted from 23.5.2013 to 7.8.2013 and ultimately died on 7.8.2013 as per death certificate dated 11.12.2014 (Annexure A-2). Due to this .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

grieved, the appellant filed an appeal on 13.5.2014 (Annexure A-6) before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 14.8.2015 (Annexure A-7) dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The primary question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the delay of 120 days in filing the appeal before the DETC(A) was liable to be condoned in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5. Examining the legal position relati .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To 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, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate-Collector (L.A.) v. Katiji N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy and Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil. 6. It was further noticed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 892 as under:- .....It is not necessary at this stage to discuss each and every judgment cited before us for the simple reason that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not lay down .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r exhausted. Each case spells out a unique experience to be dealt with by the Court as such. It was also recorded that:- For the aforestated reasons, we hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ithin 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. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. and R.B. Ramlingam's cases (supra) noticed that the courts should adopt liberal approach where .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ent cause. The applicant/petitioner is required to establish that inspite of acting with due care and caution, the delay had occurred due to circumstances beyond his control and was inevitable. 9. The question regarding whether there is sufficient cause or not, depends upon each case and is to be decided taking totality of events which had taken place in a particular case. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order dated 31.1.2013 passed by the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version