9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 15th November 2017, the Petitioner's Application for condonation of delay in filing an Appeal from order dated 13th January 2016 was dismissed. 3. The Appellant urges the following question of law for four consideration: (A) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law was the Tribunal correct and justified in dismissing the application for condonation of delay? 4. The Appeal is admitted on the above question, as it does give rise to substantial question of law. 5. At the request of the parties, the Appeal itself is taken up for final disposal, as the scope of the dispute is narrow. 6. The brief facts leading to this Appeal are: (i) The Commissioner of Service Tax on 13th January 2016 passed an order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a month in filing the Appeal and condonation Application on 26th March 2017 from 27th April 2017 i.e. after the date of receipt of the order dated 30th March 2017 which was passed by this Court dismissing the Appellant's Writ Petition No. 1724 of 2016. This delay the impugned order finds unreasonable on the ground that the Appellant was agitating the issue before the High Court for over a year, therefore, the Appellant should have kept its Appeal to the Tribunal ready and filed it with the Tribunal no sooner the High Court dismissed its Writ Petition No. 1724 of 2016. 7. The impugned order dated 15th November 2017 of the Tribunal held that the principles contained in Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 i.e. exclusion of time spent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s delay was held to be not sufficiently explained by the impugned order only on the ground that as the Petitioner whose Petition is pending in the High Court for over a year, the Appellant should have been ready with their Appeal to the Tribunal and filed it immediately after the High Court refused to entertain their Petition. The aforesaid basis of the rejection of the application for condonation of delay was not justified as the explanation offered for the delay viz. preparing the Appeal to file it to the Tribunal is reasonable. A party who prosecutes a Writ Petition bonafide expecting to succeed cannot be expected to keep preparing for an alternate remedy even before his Petition is rejected. Further, the Apex Court has repeatedly held t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
