Dismissal of Appeal Due to Unjustified Delay: Legal Reminder on Condonation of Delay

M/s. Teamwork Associates Versus Commissioner of CGST & CE, Aurangabad

M/s. Teamwork Associates Versus Commissioner of CGST & CE, Aurangabad - TMI Issues: Condonation of delay in filing the appeal

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application for condonation of delay of 1191 days in filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The applicant sought condonation of the substantial delay, but during the hearing, no satisfactory explanation was provided for the delay. The Member (Technical) noted that the delay was not adequately explained, as required by settled law. Citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Post master General, it was emphasized that the delay must be justified to the satisfaction of the appellate authority for condonation to be granted. The court highlighted that the law of limitation applies to all parties, including the government, and cannot be condoned merely due to the government's involvement in the case.

In a separate judgment referenced in the case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified the distinction between the appellate jurisdiction and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution concerning the prosecution of Review Proceedings as a cause for delay. The court stressed that the test of "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay is individualistic and discretionary, with no standard or objective criteria. Each case must be examined on its unique merits to determine if the delay is properly explained.

Furthermore, the judgment referred to observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in previous cases such as Ram Lal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. and Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, emphasizing that even after showing sufficient cause, condonation of delay is not a matter of right but a discretionary jurisdiction of the court. The court must consider all relevant facts and the diligence of the party before deciding on condonation. The judgment reiterated that the courts should not condone delays without sufficient cause, as it would undermine the legislative intent behind limitation periods.

In conclusion, the Member (Technical) dismissed the application for condonation of delay, rendering the appeal not maintainable due to the lack of adequate justification for the substantial delay in filing. The judgment underscores the importance of demonstrating sufficient cause for delay and the discretionary nature of condonation decisions by the courts.