Liberal construction of sufficient cause required where disputed service facts undermined refusal to condone delay.

Conflicting material on service of an ex parte assessment order prevented a mechanical refusal to condone delay in filing the first appeal. The record showed inconsistency between the departmental report and the service certificate on who was served and on the date of service, including a version that service was made on a person who was not a partner of the firm. Because these factual contradictions were not properly reconciled, the appellate and revisional authorities' rejection of the explanation for a delay of more than two years could not be sustained. The matter required fresh reconsideration, and "sufficient cause" in limitation matters was to be construed liberally and in a justice-oriented manner.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the first appeal against the ex parte assessment order deserved condonation in view of the conflicting material regarding service of the order and the Tribunal's failure to consider the contradiction.

Analysis: The record disclosed a material inconsistency between the departmental report and the certificate regarding who was served and when the assessment order was served. One version stated service on the dealer on 7 April 2001, while another showed service on a person who was not a partner of the firm. The appellate and revisional authorities did not satisfactorily reconcile these discrepancies before refusing to condone a delay of more than two years. In matters of limitation, the expression "sufficient cause" must receive a liberal and justice-oriented construction, and delay should not be refused mechanically where the explanation raises a serious factual issue requiring proper examination.

Conclusion: The refusal to condone delay could not be sustained on the record as considered by the Tribunal, and the matter required fresh reconsideration.

---