Condonation of delay requires sufficient cause; large revenue alone cannot justify it or warrant merits-based examination.

Delay in filing an appeal can be condoned only on a reasonable and satisfactory explanation showing sufficient cause; a large revenue implication by itself is not enough. The State is subject to the same diligence requirement as any other litigant, and the Tribunal cannot examine the merits of the dispute while deciding condonation. The order allowing delay was set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh decision on the questions of law in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in condoning delay in filing the appeal merely on the ground that huge revenue was involved, and whether such condonation could be sustained in the absence of a satisfactory explanation showing sufficient cause.

Analysis: Condonation of delay requires a reasonable and satisfactory explanation for the delay. The litigant State does not enjoy any special entitlement to condonation and is bound by the same requirement of reasonable diligence as any other party. The Tribunal's order disclosed no reasons demonstrating sufficient cause, and reliance only on the fact that a large revenue interest was at stake was held to be insufficient. It was also observed that, while deciding an application for condonation of delay, the merits of the dispute could not be examined.

Conclusion: The order condoning delay was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed and the matter was sent back for fresh decision on the questions of law raised by the State in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Delay can be condoned only on proof of sufficient cause, and the existence of a large revenue claim by itself does not justify condonation or permit adjudication on merits at the stage of deciding delay.

---