Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the dealer's appeals were barred by limitation and whether the delay in filing the appeals deserved condonation.
Analysis: The limitation period for an appeal under section 20(1) was sixty days from receipt of the notice issued under section 11(3). The notices had been sent by registered acknowledgment due post, and the plea that they were not served on an authorised person or were sent to an incorrect address did not displace the finding that the appeals were time-barred. The plea that the dealer learnt of the assessment later, obtained certified copies on 18 May 1976, and filed the appeals on 16 August 1976 was not pleaded in the memorandum of appeal. No contemporaneous request for condonation had been made, and the medical certificate relied on for illness was treated as an afterthought.
Conclusion: The delay was not shown to be bona fide or satisfactorily explained, and condonation was rightly refused.
Final Conclusion: The limitation objection succeeded, and the appeals failed on the ground of unexplained delay.
Ratio Decidendi: A party seeking condonation must disclose and substantiate the cause of delay with contemporaneous pleadings and credible material; a later-invented explanation may be rejected as an afterthought.