TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1400X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ANR. [ 2010 (2) TMI 1121 - SUPREME COURT] and RB. RAMLINGAM VERSUS RB. BHUVANESWARI [ 2009 (1) TMI 548 - SUPREME COURT] noticed that the Courts should adopt liberal approach where delay is of short period whereas the proof required should be strict where the delay is inordinate. Further, it was also observed that judgments dealing with the condonation of delay may not lay down any standard or objective test but is purely an individualistic test. The court is required to examine while adjudicating the matter relating to condonation of delay on exercising judicial discretion on individual facts involved therein - The petitioner is required to establish that in spite of acting with due care and caution, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ercial Tax Appellate Board, Bhopal (respondent No.2) in Reference No.234/CTAB/08 for the year 1997-98 whereby the Board has declined to condone the delay in filing reference application and resultantly, dismissed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short the Act of 1963 ) as well as the reference application. 3. Brief facts, relevant for the disposal of present petition, are that the petitioner was assessed under the M.P. Entry Tax Act, 1976 for the period 01.04.2000 to 31.03.2001. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer levying the entry tax, the petitioner preferred second appeal before the respondent No.2, which was dismissed vide order dated 01.03.2008. Against the order of the Appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcumstances of the case, the Management could not get updated about the development in the case till their legal counsel apprised the Management about the same when the order was published in one of the Sales Tax Journal and thus, the delay was caused due to the bona fide reason and it was not deliberate. Learned counsel further contends that the respondent No.2 has adopted a pedantic approach while dismissing the application for condonation of delay. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-State has argued in support of the impugned order and prayed that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the present petition deserves to be allowed. 7. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es 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 short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate-Collector (L.A.) v. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107, N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 and Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil (2001) 9 SCC 106. 9. 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 suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
