Inordinate delay in tax appeals was not condoned where the explanation lacked diligence and satisfactory cause.

Inordinate delay in filing tax appeals will not be condoned unless the applicant shows sufficient cause through a credible, satisfactory and diligent explanation throughout the period of delay. The Court found the delay excessive and inadequately explained, noting prolonged departmental inaction after preparation of the draft appeal and a casual, leisurely approach to prosecution of the matter. Official commitments and election duty were held insufficient to excuse the lapse, and authorities cited by the appellant were distinguished on their facts. The delay was therefore not condoned, the condonation applications failed, and the appeals were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the inordinate delay in filing the appeals under Section 36(1) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 could be condoned.

Analysis: The delay was found to be excessive and inadequately explained. The reasons advanced showed prolonged inaction by the department after preparation of the draft appeal, despite the earlier dismissal of the lead case on the same ground. The explanation based on official commitments and election duty did not establish sufficient cause to excuse the laxity, and the Court distinguished the authorities relied upon by the appellant on their facts. The Court also noted that the conduct reflected a casual and leisurely approach rather than diligence in pursuing the appeals.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the application for condonation of delay failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeals could not be entertained and stood dismissed along with the applications for condonation of delay.

Ratio Decidendi: Inordinate delay in filing a tax appeal will not be condoned unless the applicant establishes sufficient cause through a credible and satisfactory explanation showing diligence and bona fide conduct throughout the period of delay.

---