https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167979 Section 5 of the Limitation Act permits condonation of delay only on proof of sufficient cause, and the test remains fact-specific. While short delays may attract a liberal approach, an inordinate delay requires stricter scrutiny. Here, the explanation that counsel misplaced the order and the matter went unnoticed for a long period was found unconvincing, particularly because the record showed repeated non-pursuit of the matter and no credible material of diligence or unavoidable circumstances. The appellant therefore failed to establish sufficient cause for condonation of the 549-day delay, and the refusal to restore the appeal was upheld. en-us Thu, 05 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Jan 2015 13:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167979 Section 5 of the Limitation Act permits condonation of delay only on proof of sufficient cause, and the test remains fact-specific. While short delays may attract a liberal approach, an inordinate delay requires stricter scrutiny. Here, the explanation that counsel misplaced the order and the matter went unnoticed for a long period was found unconvincing, particularly because the record showed repeated non-pursuit of the matter and no credible material of diligence or unavoidable circumstances. The appellant therefore failed to establish sufficient cause for condonation of the 549-day delay, and the refusal to restore the appeal was upheld. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 05 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167979