Delay condonation fails where prescribed fee mode is ignored and no sufficient cause is shown for late appeal filing.

Non-compliance with the prescribed appellate fee-remittance mode can defeat a delay condonation request where the form and its accompanying note form part of the rules and expressly exclude cheques, drafts, hundies and other negotiable instruments. The Tribunal was justified in treating the appeal as time-barred because the demand draft was received after limitation, the party did not act diligently to secure timely filing, and no sufficient cause was shown for the delay. The supervisory writ challenge therefore failed, as there was no error warranting interference with the dismissal of the appeal as barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal should be condoned and the appeal treated as within time despite the fees being sent by demand draft instead of the prescribed challan mode.

Analysis: The appeal to the Tribunal was governed by the prescribed form and its accompanying note, which formed part of the rules. That note prohibited acceptance of cheques, drafts, hundies or other negotiable instruments. The demand draft was in any event received after expiry of limitation. The conduct of the petitioner in waiting until the end of the limitation period, seeking correspondence with the Tribunal instead of taking prompt steps to ensure timely filing, and not complying with the prescribed fee requirement, did not show diligence or substantial compliance. No sufficient cause was made out for condonation of delay.

Conclusion: The refusal to condone the delay was justified, and the appeal was rightly treated as time-barred, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed because the Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal as time-barred involved no error warranting interference under the constitutional supervisory jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the prescribed appellate form and its note form part of the rules, non-compliance with the specified fee-remittance mode, coupled with lack of diligence and absence of sufficient cause, justifies refusal to condone delay and dismissal of the appeal as barred by limitation.

---