https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449984 The dominant issue was whether the appellate authority could condone a 33-day delay in filing an appeal under s.85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994, after the appellant had first pursued a writ petition in the HC. The SC held that, since the HC permitted withdrawal with liberty to pursue the statutory remedy, the period during which the matter remained pending before the HC had to be excluded in computing limitation. On such exclusion, the appeal fell within the proviso extending limitation by one month, and delay was therefore liable to be condoned in the interest of justice. The orders of the HC, Tribunal, and appellate authority were set aside and the appeal was restored for decision on merits. en-us Thu, 15 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Dec 2025 14:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449984 The dominant issue was whether the appellate authority could condone a 33-day delay in filing an appeal under s.85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994, after the appellant had first pursued a writ petition in the HC. The SC held that, since the HC permitted withdrawal with liberty to pursue the statutory remedy, the period during which the matter remained pending before the HC had to be excluded in computing limitation. On such exclusion, the appeal fell within the proviso extending limitation by one month, and delay was therefore liable to be condoned in the interest of justice. The orders of the HC, Tribunal, and appellate authority were set aside and the appeal was restored for decision on merits. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 15 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449984