Numaligarh Refinery LTD. And 2 Ors. vs. Iqubal Singh And Anr.

Facts

The petitioners, Numaligarh Refinery Ltd. and two others, filed an Interlocutory Application (I.A.) seeking condonation of a 2300-day delay in filing a connected writ appeal. The delay arose because an initial writ petition (WP(C)/3165/2010) was decided against the applicants by a learned Single Judge on May 12, 2015. They subsequently filed a review petition on June 28, 2015, which was only disposed of on June 20, 2023. The writ appeal, along with the delay condonation application, was then filed on September 15, 2023. The applicants argued the delay was bonafide due to the prolonged pendency of the review petition and that they have a strong case on merits.

Held

The Court held that the applicants had satisfactorily explained the delay of 2300 days in filing the connected writ appeal. The reasoning was based on the fact that the review petition filed by the applicants had remained pending before the learned Single Judge for a considerable duration, which contributed to the significant delay. The Court accepted the applicants' contention that the delay was bonafide. Consequently, the Interlocutory Application was allowed, and the delay of 2300 days in filing the writ appeal was condoned. The Court directed the Registry to register the writ appeal and list it for admission after three weeks. No specific issues regarding GST provisions or merits of the case were decided at this stage, as the order pertains solely to the condonation of delay.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 2300 days in filing the writ appeal is liable to be condoned, considering the pendency of the review petition before the learned Single Judge. Petitioner's Arguments: The applicants contended that the delay was bonafide and satisfactorily explained due to the review petition remaining pending for a significant period. They also asserted that they have a good case on merits, justifying the condonation of the delay. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment records that notices were served to the respondents, but no reply opposing the application was filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 (The Pr. Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Guwahati). Respondent no. 1 (Iqubal Singh) did not appear despite service of notice. Therefore, no arguments were recorded for the revenue/state.