TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court condones delay, sets aside Tribunal order, remits for adjudication. Flexibility in 'sufficient cause' requirement.</h1> <h3>M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Ambala Cantt. Versus The State of Haryana and another</h3> M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Ambala Cantt. Versus The State of Haryana and another - [2015] 78 VST 360 (P&H) Issues:Delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal and whether the delay should be condoned.Analysis:The appellant, a Government of India undertaking engaged in the sale and purchase of petroleum products, filed an appeal under Section 36 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 against the order passed by the Haryana Tax Tribunal. The primary issue was whether the delay of 155 days in filing the appeal was justifiable. The Tribunal had dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation, leading to the present appeal before the High Court.The legal position regarding condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was examined. Referring to the Supreme Court's judgments in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, the Court emphasized that the law of limitation is based on public policy to ensure timely redressal of legal injuries. The concept of 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay is flexible, requiring a case-by-case analysis. The Court must determine whether the delay was due to circumstances beyond the party's control and whether the party acted with reasonable diligence.In this case, the appellant argued that the delay in filing the appeal was unintentional and resulted from the decision-making process involving different authorities. The Court found the explanation provided by the appellant plausible and concluded that there was sufficient cause for the delay. Citing a previous judgment where a similar delay was condoned, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for adjudication on merits in accordance with the law. Consequently, the delay of 155 days was condoned, and the substantial question of law was answered accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
