Bona fide pursuit of an alternative remedy can justify condonation of delay in filing an appeal.

Where two alternative remedies are available, bona fide and diligent prosecution of one remedy can constitute sufficient cause for delay in pursuing the other. The assessee first sought to have an ex parte assessment set aside under section 30 of the Sales Tax Act, and the revising authority found that course to have been pursued bona fide and with due diligence. The Court accepted that the time spent in that remedy could be excluded when considering delay in filing the appeal. The delay was therefore lawfully condoned in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned on the ground that the assessee had been bona fide and with due diligence prosecuting an application under section 30 before pursuing the appeal on merits.

Analysis: The assessee had first pursued the statutory remedy under section 30 of the Sales Tax Act for setting aside the ex parte assessment order and continued that course up to its final rejection. The revising authority found, as a matter of fact, that this prosecution was bona fide and with due diligence. The Court accepted that where two alternative remedies are available, and the assessee bona fide pursues one remedy which, if successful, would make the other unnecessary, the period spent in such prosecution can constitute sufficient cause for not filing the appeal earlier.

Conclusion: The delay was lawfully condoned and the answer to the referred question was in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee.

---