Delay condonation must rest on a full, credible explanation for the entire delay; unsupported diligence findings cannot stand.

Delay condonation under the proviso to section 23(3)(a) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act is discretionary and requires a diligent applicant to explain the entire period of delay satisfactorily. The record showed an unexplained and substantial lapse after receipt of the appellate orders, including delay in obtaining records and further delay thereafter. The assumption that the concerned officer may have lacked capacity had no supporting material, and the Tribunal's finding of diligence was one no reasonable decision-maker applying settled principles could reach. The condonation of delay was therefore held unjustified, and the Tribunal's order was quashed in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in condoning the delay in filing the State's second appeals under the proviso to section 23(3)(a) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act.

Analysis: The power to condone delay under the proviso to section 23(3)(a) is discretionary and must be exercised on settled principles, with the applicant showing diligence and a satisfactory explanation for the entire period of delay. The record showed an unexplained and substantial lapse after the appellate orders were received, including the month taken to obtain records and the further delay after the records were received. The assumption that the concerned officer may have lacked capacity was unsupported by material, and the Tribunal's conclusion that the State had acted diligently was held to be one no reasonable person properly applying legal principles could reach.

Conclusion: The condonation of delay was unjustified and the Tribunal's order was quashed, in favour of the assessee.

---