https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412618 A revision filed with a 433-day delay was refused condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 because the explanation did not cover the full period. The court noted that the petitioner and counsel were aware of the impugned order and had been actively participating in the trial proceedings, so the delay was not shown to arise from sufficient cause. Custody and later disruption caused by the Covid-19 pandemic were found inadequate to justify the belated filing. The revision was therefore treated as time barred and dismissed. en-us Mon, 13 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Mar 2025 11:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412618 A revision filed with a 433-day delay was refused condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 because the explanation did not cover the full period. The court noted that the petitioner and counsel were aware of the impugned order and had been actively participating in the trial proceedings, so the delay was not shown to arise from sufficient cause. Custody and later disruption caused by the Covid-19 pandemic were found inadequate to justify the belated filing. The revision was therefore treated as time barred and dismissed. Case-Laws GST Mon, 13 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412618