High Court allows revision, emphasizes substantial justice, and liberal approach to condone appeal delay

PI. Industries Limited Versus Commissioner, Trade Tax, UP., Lucknow

PI. Industries Limited Versus Commissioner, Trade Tax, UP., Lucknow - [2009] 20 VST 19 (All) Issues:
1. Condensation of delay in filing an appeal under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 for the assessment year 2004-05.

Analysis:
The case involved a revision under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 against the Tribunal's order dated April 13, 2006, related to the assessment year 2004-05. The appeal was filed beyond the time limit by 287 days, and an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was submitted along with the appeal. The applicant contended that due to the counsel's mistake, the appeal could not be filed on time. The Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay citing lack of evidence and affidavit from the counsel. However, the earlier counsel admitted to the delay due to his omission. The High Court noted that there was a reasonable cause for condonation of delay, emphasizing the need for a pragmatic view in such matters.

The High Court highlighted the importance of condoning delay in the interest of substantial justice, citing various judgments, including the case of Rafiq v. Munshi Lal. The Court stressed that rules of limitation should not hinder the rights of parties but ensure legal remedies are available for a legislatively fixed period. The Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji was referenced to support the view that courts should apply a liberal approach in matters of condonation of delay to prevent meritorious cases from being dismissed at the outset.

Furthermore, the High Court referred to several other cases such as N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy and Shankar Rao v. Chandrasenkumar to explain the scope of limitation and the need for a pragmatic approach in condoning delay. The Court also emphasized that the judiciary's role is to remove injustice and that the law of limitation is founded on public policy. Various judgments were cited to support the liberal construction of the expression "sufficient cause" under section 5 of the Limitation Act, including Briji Inder Singh v. Kanshi Ram and Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the revision, set aside the Tribunal's order, and condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal was directed to register the appeal and decide on merit, emphasizing the importance of substantial justice over technical considerations in such cases.