High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
M/s Satish Radios v. The Commissioner of Sales Tax - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1703 of 1992  RD-AH 361 (29 September 2003)
SALES TAX REVISION NO.1703 OF 1992
M/s Satish Radios ....Applicant
The Commissioner of Sales Tax ....Opp.Party
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
This revision is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 15.10.1992 for the assessment year 1987-88 by which Tribunal has rejected the appeal as barred by limitation. The first appellate order was served upon the counsel on 03.04.1992. The limitation for filing of appeal was 90 days and accordingly, it should have been filed by 02.07.1992 while it was filed on 08.10.1992 alongwith application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. In the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was stated that the order of the first appellate authority was served on the counsel and he was advised by his counsel, Sri R.K.Malik that limitation for filing the appeal was six months and under this bonafide belief, the appeal could be filed within 90 days. In support of averments made in the application, the affidavits of counsel Sri R.K.Malik and Sri Satish Kumar have been filed. Tribunal rejected the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act and refused to condone the delay. Tribunal has observed that counsel has misdirected his client. Since the limitation from six months to 90 days was changed two years back. Therefore, it could not be believe that counsel has suggested that the limitation for filing the appeal was six months.
I have perused the order of Tribunal and application under Section 5 of Limitation Act and the affidavits of Sri R.K.Malik, Advocate and Sri Satish Kumar, Proprietor of the firm. In my view, Tribunal has taken a pedantic view while considering the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act in the matter of condonation of delay. Tribunal should have taken a liberal and pragmatic view. Once the affidavit was filed by counsel in which he has admitted his mistake in giving a wrong advice, the reason was sufficient for condonation of delay. In the circumstances, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Tribunal is directed to decide the appeal on merit.
In the result, the revision is allowed and the order dated 15.10.1992 is set aside. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Tribunal is directed to decide the appeal on merits. Since the appeal is quite old, Tribunal is directed to decidethe appeal expeditiously.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.