Condonation of delay must be decided on sufficient cause first; merits cannot be used to reject the application prematurely.

A Tribunal considering condonation of delay must first decide whether sufficient cause exists for the delay in filing the appeal, and should not refuse relief by pre-judging the merits of an earlier refusal to condone delay. The Bombay HC held that the Tribunal acted unsustainably in rejecting the second appeal's condonation application on the basis that the first appeal had been delayed, because the second appeal had been filed within one year from service of the first appellate order. The refusal to condone delay was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing the second appeal by going into the merits of the matter instead of first deciding whether sufficient cause was shown.

Analysis: The revision arose under Section 38 of the Goa Value Added Tax Act, 2005 against the order dismissing the application for condonation of delay. The Tribunal had declined relief on the ground that the first appeal had itself been filed beyond one year from the date of service of the original order, and therefore no useful purpose would be served by condoning delay in the second appeal. The proper first inquiry, however, was limited to whether sufficient cause existed for condonation of delay in filing the second appeal. Since the second appeal had been filed within one year from the date of service of the first appellate decision, the Tribunal was required to examine the application on its own merits and could not at that stage decide the merits of the earlier refusal to condone delay.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's approach was held to be unsustainable, and the order refusing condonation of delay was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal to decide the application for condonation of delay afresh in accordance with law.

---