Reasonable time for re-presentation: unsupported delay in curing a defect justified refusal to condone delay.

Where no specific period is prescribed for re-presentation of an appeal, it must still be made within a reasonable time, assessed by the time available for filing, the nature of the defect to be cured, and the explanation for delay. A re-presentation after about nine months for a defect limited to want of verification was held unreasonable because the explanation of the consultant's illness was unsupported by medical or documentary material. On those facts, the Tribunal's refusal to condone the delay disclosed no error of law, and the writ challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in re-presentation of the appeal was unreasonable and whether the Tribunal was justified in refusing to condone the delay.

Analysis: Though no express period was prescribed for re-presentation, it had to be done within a reasonable time. The period available for filing the appeal, the nature of the defect to be cured, and the explanation offered for the delay were relevant factors. Here, the defect was only want of verification and the appeal was re-presented after about nine months. The explanation that the consultant was unwell was unsupported by any medical or documentary material, and the petitioner itself had sought condonation of delay. On these facts, the Tribunal's refusal to condone the delay disclosed no error of law.

Conclusion: The Tribunal correctly held that the re-presentation was delayed beyond a reasonable time and properly declined to condone the delay, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed because the impugned orders upholding dismissal of the appeal for delayed re-presentation called for no interference.

Ratio Decidendi: Where no specific period is prescribed for re-presentation, it must still be made within a reasonable time, assessed on the facts, and unexplained or unsupported delay may justify of condonation.

---