2012 (8) TMI 875

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mber 21, 2011 passed by the Haryana Tax Tribunal whereby the second appeal (STA No. 709 of 2010-11) was dismissed as barred by limitation being late by about three months. The appellant has claimed that the following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal: "(1) Was the Tribunal, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, legally justified in refusing to condone the delay, and dismissing the substantive appeal as barred by limitation? (2) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, appellant could be made to suffer on account of fault of his counsel when the copy received by the counsel on behalf of the appellant had been delivered to the appellant with delay?" 2. The facts, in brief, are that the appe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion. Admittedly, the order of the JETC(A) was passed on August 9, 2010 and in the application dated January 12, 2011 for the condonation of delay before the Tribunal, the appellant had pleaded that his counsel had taken the authenticated copy and delivered to the appellant on December 30, 2010 after repeated requests. The said application was submitted along with an affidavit with the plea that the appellant may not be put to adverse position for nondelivery of the authenticated copy received by his counsel earlier and the mistake of the counsel should not adversely affect the interests of the appellant as he had nothing to gain by filing the appeal at a belated stage. 5. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides that if the appella....