Writ jurisdiction and sufficient cause allowed delayed statutory appeal to be heard on merits despite limitation bar

The commentary notes that delay in filing a statutory appeal beyond the period permitted under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 could not be condoned by the appellate authority, but the High Court, on facts showing bona fide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, exercised writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to grant relief. It directed that the appeal be considered on merits without being rejected on limitation, and the impugned order-in-appeal was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the statutory appeal against the order-in-appeal could be condoned in the exercise of writ jurisdiction and the appeal restored for decision on merits.

Analysis: The appellate authority had no power to condone delay beyond the period permissible under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Court found that the petitioner's failure to file the appeal within time was explained by bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause. In the peculiar facts of the case, the Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant relief and direct consideration of the appeal on merits without reference to limitation.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned, the impugned order-in-appeal was set aside, and the appeal was directed to be heard on merits in favour of the assessee.

---