Condonation of delay based on later discovery of legal position upheld as a factual finding, with the petition rejected.

Delay in filing a statutory appeal may be condoned where the appellant acted promptly after the relevant legal position became known, and that explanation constitutes sufficient cause. The Bombay HC treated the Tribunal's acceptance of the assessee's delay explanation as a factual finding, not a question of law, and upheld the remand for decision on merits. It noted that the approach was consistent with the Supreme Court's recognition that a legal mistake discovered only after a later decision may justify condonation. The petition was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Sales Tax Tribunal was justified in holding that sufficient cause existed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and in remanding the appeal for decision on merits.

Analysis: The appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was filed long after the statutory period had expired. The Tribunal accepted the explanation that the assessee moved promptly after the Supreme Court's decision in Khosla's case became known and treated that circumstance as sufficient cause for the delay. The High Court found that this was essentially a finding on facts and did not give rise to any question of law. It also noted that the course adopted by the assessee was consistent with the approach recognised by the Supreme Court in Kamala Mills, where a mistake discovered only after a later Supreme Court decision could support condonation of delay.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's view on sufficient cause was upheld and the petition was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A factual finding that delay in filing a statutory appeal was caused by the later discovery of the relevant legal position, and that the appellant acted promptly thereafter, does not raise a question of law if the explanation constitutes sufficient cause for condonation.

---