TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Court grants condonation of delay, quashes order, emphasizes party's beliefs in ensuring justice.</h1> The court allowed the application for condonation of delay, subject to costs, and quashed the impugned order. The Second Appeal was restored to the ... Condonation of delay - Bonafide belief - Withdrawal of appeals - Clubbing of appeals - Held that:- Contention of the petitioners that they were under bonafide belief that the appeal is still pending stands fortified from the facts narrated hereiabove and from the affidavits placed on record. It is further to be noted that though the petitioners had requested for withdrawal of appeal in part, the Appellate Authority erroneously dismissed the appeal as withdrawn in toto. By now, it is well-settled principle of law that the act of Court shall prejudice none. Reliance in this respect shall be placed on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Gursharan Singh and Others vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee & Ors. [1996 (2) TMI 540 - SUPREME COURT]. The Appellate Authority acting under the said Act, acts in a quasi-judicial capacity. On account of an error which is committed by a quasi-judicial authority, and which according to the affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant, was assured to be corrected by him, but however not corrected by him, a prejudice cannot be permitted to be caused to a litigant who was acting bonafide - petitioners have made out a case of sufficient cause and as such, have made out a case for condonation of delay. However, the same shall be subject to costs which are quantified at ₹ 10,000 - Decided partly in favour of assessee. Issues:1. Dismissal of application for condonation of delay and Second Appeal.2. Bonafide impression of petitioners regarding the status of the appeal.3. Arguments by the counsel for the petitioners and the Revenue.4. Legal principles regarding condonation of delay.5. Detailed analysis of the case and judgment.Dismissal of Application for Condonation of Delay and Second Appeal:The petitioners approached the court aggrieved by the dismissal of their application for condonation of delay and the Second Appeal. The petitioners believed that their appeal was only partly withdrawn and still pending in part. The application for condonation of delay was rejected, leading to the filing of the present petition.Bonafide Impression of Petitioners Regarding the Status of the Appeal:The petitioners, a registered company, were assessed for Sales Tax liability for the period 1992-93. They believed the appeal was only partly disposed of and still pending before the Appellate Authority. The delay in realizing the dismissal of the appeal was attributed to the petitioners' bonafide belief, as advised by their consultant, that the appeal was pending in part.Arguments by Counsel for Petitioners and Revenue:The counsel for the petitioners argued that the delay should not be a ground for dismissal if a sufficient cause for not filing the appeal was established. They presented affidavits supporting their bonafide impression and the circumstances leading to the delay. In contrast, the Revenue's counsel contended that the delay was inordinate and unexplained, justifying the dismissal.Legal Principles Regarding Condonation of Delay:The court emphasized the need to determine if a party seeking condonation of delay had shown a sufficient cause. Referring to legal precedents, the court highlighted the importance of taking a liberal view while considering such applications.Detailed Analysis of the Case and Judgment:The court analyzed the sequence of events, including the withdrawal of a part of the appeal, the consultant's efforts to rectify the error, and the petitioners' continuous belief in the pending status of the appeal. The court found that the petitioners' bonafide belief was supported by the consultant's actions and the lack of response from the authorities for several years. The judgment emphasized that the court should not prejudice a litigant due to errors by quasi-judicial authorities.In conclusion, the court allowed the application for condonation of delay, subject to costs, and quashed the impugned order. The Second Appeal was restored to the Tribunal for a decision on its merits. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering the circumstances and bonafide beliefs of parties in condonation cases, ensuring justice is not denied due to procedural errors.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
