Sufficient cause and genuine purchase transactions controlled the delay and input tax credit dispute, with no interference warranted.

Condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act requires a credible, case-specific showing of sufficient cause, and a long delay unsupported by justification will not be excused. On the tax merits, input tax credit and refund were upheld where the purchasing dealer was found genuine, the corresponding sales were reflected in returns and assessed, and no illegality or perversity was shown in the Tribunal's findings. The revisional interference was therefore unwarranted, and the appeals failed both on limitation and on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revenue had shown sufficient cause for condonation of the delay of 503 days in filing the appeals; (ii) Whether the assessee was entitled to input tax credit and refund where the purchasing dealer was genuine and the Tribunal found no basis to reverse the credit.

Issue (i): Whether the revenue had shown sufficient cause for condonation of the delay of 503 days in filing the appeals.

Analysis: Condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 depends on sufficient cause shown on the facts of each case. The expression is elastic, but the party seeking condonation must show that the delay was inevitable despite due care and caution. Applying that standard, the explanation offered for the long lapse of time was found to be unsupported by justification.

Conclusion: The delay was not satisfactorily explained and was not condoned.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee was entitled to input tax credit and refund where the purchasing dealer was genuine and the Tribunal found no basis to reverse the credit.

Analysis: The Tribunal had recorded that the assessee purchased goods from a genuine dealer, the corresponding sales were reflected in the dealer's returns and were assessed, and the revisional order contained no valid basis to reverse the input tax credit. No illegality or perversity in those findings was shown. In such circumstances, disallowance or reversal of the credit was unwarranted.

Conclusion: The assessee's entitlement to input tax credit was upheld and the revenue's challenge failed on merits.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were liable to be rejected both because the delay in filing was not condoned and because the merits of the Tribunal's decision disclosed no error warranting interference.

Ratio Decidendi: Condonation of delay requires a credible, case-specific showing of sufficient cause, and an appellate challenge to input tax credit cannot succeed where the finding that the transactions were genuine and the lower authority's conclusion suffer from no perversity.

---