Liberal construction of sufficient cause led to condonation of delay and reference of the legal question.

A liberal construction of "sufficient cause" justified condonation where petitions for later assessment years were filed after mistaken legal advice, with no abandonment, mala fide, or culpable negligence shown, and prompt corrective steps taken once the defect emerged. The Court held that a meritorious claim should not fail on a technicality and excused the delay. It further held that, because the same question of law had already been found referable in the connected matter and the later years arose on identical facts and controversy, the Tribunal was required to refer the stated question of law together with the statement of the case.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the delay in filing the petitions under section 42(2) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, ought to be condoned; (ii) whether the Tribunal should be directed to refer the question of law arising from its order to the High Court for opinion.

Issue (i): whether the delay in filing the petitions under section 42(2) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, ought to be condoned.

Analysis: The petitions for the later assessment years were filed after an earlier joint petition had been treated as relating only to the first assessment year. The Court found that the petitioner had acted under mistaken legal advice, had not abandoned or withdrawn the claims for the subsequent years, and had promptly taken steps once the defect was pointed out. It held that there was no culpable negligence or mala fide and that refusal to condone the delay would defeat a meritorious claim on a technicality. Applying a justice-oriented approach to the expression "sufficient cause", the Court held that the delay deserved to be excused.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): whether the Tribunal should be directed to refer the question of law arising from its order to the High Court for opinion.

Analysis: The Court held that the same question of law had already been directed to be referred in the connected matter for the earlier assessment year, and the later years arose on the same facts and legal controversy. Since the delay was condoned and the objection as to maintainability was rejected, the question of law was held to arise from the Tribunal's order, warranting a reference under the statutory reference procedure.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was directed to refer the stated question of law together with the statement of the case.

Final Conclusion: The petitions succeeded, the delay was excused, and the reference process was set in motion on the same legal issue already accepted as referable in the connected matter.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a litigant acts under bona fide mistaken advice and no mala fides or culpable negligence is shown, a liberal and justice-oriented construction of "sufficient cause" is warranted so that a meritorious matter is not defeated on technical grounds.

---