TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 602X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, 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. In the present case after appreciating the matter it cannot be said that there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay. However, the appeal was required to be filed within the stipulated period of limitation of 60 days. But the appellant filed the present appeal on 28.11.2018, after a delay of 503 days. The plea of the appellant as mentioned above would not satisfy the test of sufficient cause. The explanation of the appellant is bereft of justification for the delay caused in filing the appeal keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case. Delay cannot be condoned - Application for condonation of delay is dismissed. - VATAP-334-2018 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 30-1-2019 - MR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods from M/s Kiran Industrial Corporation, Panipat who had made purchases from the dealers as mentioned in para 5 of the appeal during 2nd and 3rd quarters. The Revisional Authority vide order dated 30.9.2014 (Annexure A-2) set aside the order, Annexure A-1, passed by the Assessing Authority by observing that the Assessing Authority had illegally allowed refund qua the said purchases made by the assessee as these transactions had never suffered any tax or paid tax into Haryana Government Treasury at any stage. Feeling aggrieved by the order, Annexure A-2, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 30.9.2014 (Annexure A- 3) allowed the appeal and set aside the order, Annexure A-2, passed by the Revisional Authority. Hence, the present appeals by the revenue. Since, the appeals filed by the revenue were barred by limitation, the applications have been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short the 1963 Act ) for condonation of delay in filing the appeals. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 5. The primary question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there was sufficient cause for c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the individual cases whether circumstances exist establishing sufficient cause. There are no categories of sufficient cause. The categories of sufficient cause are never 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.... 8. 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 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 pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lar case. In the present case after appreciating the matter it cannot be said that there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay. However, the appeal was required to be filed within the stipulated period of limitation of 60 days. But the appellant filed the present appeal on 28.11.2018, after a delay of 503 days. The plea of the appellant as mentioned above would not satisfy the test of sufficient cause. The explanation of the appellant is bereft of justification for the delay caused in filing the appeal keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case. 12. Even otherwise, there is no merit in the appeals. The Tribunal while allowing the appeal of the dealer had noticed that in reassessment of M/s Kiran Industrial Corporation, Panipat, the sales made by it to the assessee had been assessed vide order dated 27.8.2015 where also the ITC claim of the assessee could not be reversed and disallowed. Since the assessee made purchases from M/s Kiran Industrial Corporation, Panipat which was a genuine dealer and sales made by M/s Kiran Industrial Corporation in favour of the assessee had also been reflected in the returns of M/s Kiran Industrial Corporati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
