Liberal construction of sufficient cause supports condonation of short delay where no negligence or mala fides is shown.

Delay in filing a second appeal under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act was considered under the liberal "sufficient cause" standard in section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Court accepted the affidavit explaining that the certified copy reached the appellant late through counsel and that the appeal was filed after receipt of the copy. It held that, where the delay was short and there was no culpable negligence or mala fides, a technical refusal to condone was improper. The Tribunal's rejection of condonation was therefore unsustainable, and the delay was liable to be condoned.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the second appeal before the Tribunal ought to have been condoned on the facts of the case.

Analysis: The appeal arose under section 36(2) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The application for condonation was supported by an affidavit explaining that the certified copy obtained by counsel was delivered to the appellant belatedly and that the appeal was filed after the appellant received the copy. In considering section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the Court applied the settled principle that the expression "sufficient cause" is to receive a liberal construction, particularly where the delay is short and no culpable negligence or mala fides is shown. The Court held that the Tribunal had adopted an unduly technical approach and that the appellant should not suffer for the counsel's omission where no advantage was gained by the delay.

Conclusion: The delay was liable to be condoned and the refusal to condone it was unsustainable; the issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

---