Condonation of delay turns on bona fide pursuit of remedy and sufficient cause, not a rigid technical approach.

Delay in filing an appeal may be condoned where the applicant shows sufficient cause under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the explanation reflects bona fide pursuit of remedy without gross negligence or mala fide conduct. Time spent before a wrong forum, including where proceedings were taken under a mistaken but honest belief or legal advice, can form part of that sufficient cause if supported by affidavit and not effectively rebutted. Applying that liberal, justice-oriented standard, the HC found the Tribunal had adopted an unduly technical approach, allowed the revision, and restored the appeal for disposal in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Trade Tax Tribunal was liable to be condoned on the facts and circumstances of the case.

Analysis: The assessee had pursued remedies against the rejection of the eligibility-certificate claim, including a second review application and a writ petition, before approaching the Tribunal. The time spent before the wrong forum was treated as bona fide pursuit of a remedy under a mistaken but honest belief. The explanation for the delay was supported by affidavit and was not effectively controverted. The governing standard under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is whether sufficient cause is shown, and that expression requires a liberal, justice-oriented approach where there is no gross negligence, inaction, or mala fide conduct. The Tribunal adopted an unduly strict and technical view in rejecting the explanation for the different periods of delay.

Conclusion: The delay was held to be sufficiently explained and liable to be condoned.

Final Conclusion: The revision was allowed and the assessee obtained relief against the order refusing condonation of delay, with the appeal restored for disposal in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Time spent bona fide in pursuing a remedy before a wrong forum, or under a mistaken but honest legal advice, may constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay where the party acts with reasonable diligence and without mala fide or gross negligence.

---