Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P. And Anr. vs U.P. Paper Corporation Pvt. Ltd.
- SCC(2002) 9 SCC 585
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
When a statutory authority has exercised a discretion vested in it by law to condone delay in filing an appeal, having found sufficient cause for the delay, that exercise of discretion is not subject to judicial review by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution unless the order is shown to be perverse or passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Where delay in filing an appeal arises from circumstances beyond the control of the appellant, such as misrouting of official documents by an intermediary authority, sufficient cause exists to justify condonation of delay by the statutory authority exercising appellate jurisdiction.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
This appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Allahabad in C.M. W.P. No. 790 of 1995 dated November 19, 1997, quashing the order of the Trade Tax Tribunal, Bench I, Agra.
2. The appellants filed an appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Lucknow Zone, before the Sales Tax Tribunal, Bench I, Agra. There was a delay of 208 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal having considered the reasons given in the application seeking condonation of delay found sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the appeal and admitted the appeal on April 5, 1995. That order of the Tribunal was questioned before the High Court by filing the aforementioned writ petition. The High Court by the impugned order, quashed the said order of the Tribunal on the ground that no sufficient cause was shown.
3. When a statutory authority, having been satisfied with the reasons for the delay exercised discretion vested in him under law by condoning the delay, it was not a fit case for, judicial review by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless of course the order impugned is a perverse order or is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.
4. Now adverting to the merits of the case, a perusal of the application shows that the reason for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was that after the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Lucknow Zone, disposed of the appeal, the order was despatched to a different authority and at a different place, the State Representative at Agra who did not forward the same to the correct place and that resulted in the delay which was beyond the control of the appellants. On this ground, in our view, the Tribunal has rightly exercised its discretion to condone the delay. Before us the order of the Tribunal is not shown to be perverse or suffering from the vice of violation of principles of natural justice.
5. In the aforementioned circumstances, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and restore the order of the Tribunal.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free