Condonation of delay in credit declaration cannot defeat substantive relief when the filing is within the condonable period.

Delay in filing the statutory declaration for credit under Rule 57G(5) was condonable where it was filed within the six-month period and sufficient cause could be recorded in writing. The refusal to condone was unsustainable because no reasons were given, and the beneficial nature of the credit scheme required that substantive relief under Rule 57A not be denied on a mere procedural lapse. The earlier precedent was distinguishable on facts since no declaration had been filed there. The orders rejecting credit were set aside and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether delay in filing the declaration required for availment of credit under Rule 57G(5) could be condoned and the credit benefit denied on a technical ground.

Analysis: Rule 57G(5) empowers the Assistant Commissioner to condone delay in filing the declaration for sufficient reason recorded in writing, up to six months. The declaration in the present case was filed within six months, and the request for condonation was rejected without reasons. The provision was treated as part of a beneficial scheme, and the substantive credit benefit under Rule 57A was held not to be denied merely on technicalities. The authority below also had not considered the condonation request properly, and the cited precedent was distinguished on facts because no declaration had been filed there.

Conclusion: The delay was condonable and the denial of credit could not be sustained on the procedural lapse.

Final Conclusion: The orders rejecting credit were set aside and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory declaration is filed within the condonable period and the scheme is beneficial in nature, delay should be condoned on sufficient cause and substantive credit relief should not be denied merely for a procedural defect.

---