Condonation of delay must be decided on sufficient cause, not a mistaken maintainability objection under Section 28(3).

A delay application cannot be rejected solely on an erroneous view that a second appeal is not maintainable under Section 28(3) of the Goa Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 2000 unless the disputed amount is deposited or paid. The Tribunal had not independently examined whether sufficient cause was shown for condonation and instead relied on the maintainability objection adopted by the First Appellate Authority. That approach was not accepted, and the refusal to condone delay could not stand. The Tribunal's order was set aside, and the second appeal was restored for fresh consideration of the condonation application on its own merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's refusal to condone delay and its reliance on Section 28(3) of the Goa Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 2000 to decline entertainment of the second appeal could be sustained.

Analysis: The orders under challenge did not meaningfully examine whether sufficient cause had been shown for the delay. Instead, the Tribunal adopted the First Appellate Authority's view on the maintainability of the appeal under Section 28(3) and proceeded on the basis that the appeal could not be entertained unless the disputed amount had been deposited or paid. That approach was not accepted in an earlier connected matter, and the same reasoning was applied here. Since the delay application was not decided on its own merits, the refusal to condone delay could not stand.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was set aside and the second appeal was restored to the Tribunal for fresh consideration of the condonation application on its own merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A delay application cannot be rejected by resting solely on an erroneous view of appeal maintainability under Section 28(3); the question of sufficient cause must be independently decided on merits.

---