Condonation of extraordinary delay in tax appeal rejected where counsel's illness and death did not establish sufficient cause.

An extraordinary delay of 2,569 days in filing a second appeal under the Orissa Sales Tax Act was not condoned because the assessee failed to show sufficient cause. The explanation that counsel was ill and later died was found unconvincing, particularly as the assessee did not verify whether the appeal had been filed. The High Court noted that a justice-oriented approach used in land acquisition matters cannot be mechanically extended to sales tax proceedings, and the merits of the assessment were not examined because the dispute was confined to condonation of delay. The refusal to condone the delay was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the explanation offered for condonation of an extraordinary delay of 2569 days in filing the second appeal before the Tribunal constituted sufficient cause.

Analysis: The delay arose in a sales tax proceeding under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, where the assessee was expected to be aware of the requirement of filing appeals within time. The explanation that the lawyer was ill and later died was found unconvincing, especially since the assessee had not followed up to verify whether the appeal had been filed. The justice-oriented approach referred to in the context of land acquisition matters was held not to apply automatically to sales tax proceedings. Since the dispute before the High Court was confined to the Tribunal's refusal to condone delay, the merits of the assessment were not examined.

Conclusion: The explanation did not establish sufficient cause for condonation of the extraordinary delay. The Tribunal's refusal to condone the delay was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A justice-oriented approach to delay cannot be mechanically extended to tax proceedings, and an unexplained extraordinary delay will not be condoned unless sufficient cause is satisfactorily established.

---