https://www.taxtmi.com/css/info/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.css?v=1746094055 https://www.taxtmi.com Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services Tax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420701 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420701 Condonation of delay of 595 days in filing the appeal - sufficient cause for delay existing or not - declaration under Arrears category of the Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) - Section 5 of Limitation Act - Doctrine of Equality - HELD THAT:- The words sufficient cause for not making the application within the period of limitation have to be understood and applied in a reasonable, pragmatic, practical and liberal manner however depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case and even the type of case. Hon ble Apex Court in the case of PERUMON BHAGVATHY DEVASWOM, PERINADU VILLAGE VERSUS BHARGAVI AMMA (DEAD) BY LRS ORS. [ 2008 (7) TMI 836 - SUPREME COURT] has held that the words Sufficient Cause in Section 5 of Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice but only in a circumstance when the delay is not on account of any dilatory tactics, want of bona fides, deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the appellant. It is observed that the pleas about availing the benefit of Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme cannot be held to be a sufficient cause because Scheme came into effect from September, 2019 whereas the period of limitation to file the impugned appeal had expired on 11th March, 2019 itself i.e. almost six months prior the Scheme could had come into effect the period of limitation to file impugned appeal had already expired. Another reason about the death of the father in law of the appellant is also an event post-expiration of the period of limitation. None of the said two grounds explains the delay that occurred between 11.12.2018 and 11.03.2019. The non-filing of appeal by the consultant also is not the sufficient cause because appellant was required to pursue his consultant and to ensure that his appeal gets filed before 11.03.2018 but appellant failed - the same is definite inaction on part of appellant resulting out of his negligence. Hence none of the grounds could be considered as the sufficient cause due to which the appellant was restrained from filing the appeal during the prescribed period. The Hon ble Apex Court in the case of COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VERSUS MST. KATIJI AND OTHERS [ 1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT] though has held that the expression sufficient cause is adequately elastic to apply the law in a meaningful manner to sub-serve the ends of the justice but only in case where delay is not on account of negligence. Also the said judgment simultaneously talks about the doctrine of equality holding that all litigants including the State as a litigant must be accorded an equal treatment and law should be administered in an even manner. The reasons mentioned in the application do not suffice to be called as sufficient cause as it should be in terms of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The appellant/applicant is rather observed to be absolutely non-diligent and question of exercising any leniency in his favour does not at all arise - Appeal dismissed. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 01 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530