By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, JUNE 21, 2014 : THIS is an Appeal filed against the order passed by the Tribunalrefusing to condone delay of 76 days in filing of statutory appeal.

The explanation given in the application for condonation of delay was thatthe Office Superintendent who was looking after all the legal matters was unwell and had not been attending office; that he had been advised bed rest by the doctor for his back ailment and requisite certificates were attached; that after resumption of duties steps were taken to expeditiously file the Appeal and in the meanwhile they complied with the order without prejudice to their legal rights and thus acted bonafide.

The counsel for the Revenue submitted that the Tribunal had held that the explanation given for the delay cannot be accepted &it is by exercising the discretion in accordance with the law the Tribunal had refused to condone the delay and, therefore, appeal deserves to be dismissed.

The High Court perused the order passed by the Tribunal and the COD application and observed -

++ The Tribunal has termed the explanation offered by the Appellant as casual. The Tribunal, in our opinion, has taken a hyper technical view of the matter. It does not hold that the explanation given is false or that the conduct of the Appellants is such that they were utterly negligent, careless and acted malafide, then, there was no need to take such a view. In fact, liberal principles ought to have been applied and delay deserved to be condoned with appropriate direction of payment of costs so as to compensate the Respondent and balance the rights and equities.

++ Once the explanation given is found to be genuine and not false, then, holding that the delay does not deserve to be condoned because the Appeal was not filed immediately after resumption of duty or after deposit of the demanded amount, was not in accordance with law. We are of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be sustained.

++ The delay deserves to be condoned by applying the liberal principles and which are too well settled. The Appellants deserves to be given a chance to agitate their case on merits as they have acted bonafide. These are the principles which should have been invoked and applied and having not done that, we are unable to sustain the order under challenge.

The order passed by the Tribunal was quashed and set aside. Nonetheless, while condoning the delay, the High Court directed the appellant to pay costs of Rs.15,000/- and produce the proof before the Tribunal who would revive the appeal as well as the stay application.

(See 2014-TIOL-999-HC-MUM-CX)