The Additional Commissioner vs. The Commissioner

Facts

The petitioners, the Additional Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai, filed Civil Miscellaneous Petitions (C.M.P.) to condone a delay of 112 days in filing Writ Appeals (W.A.) against an unspecified order. The respondent in one petition is the Commissioner of Paramakudi Municipality, and in the other, the Commissioner of Paramakudi Municipality and the Branch Manager of the State Bank of India, Paramakudi. The petitions were filed before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The respondent(s) in both petitions had no objection to the delay being condoned.

Held

The Court held that the delay of 112 days in filing the Writ Appeals is condoned. The Court was satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petitions. Furthermore, the Court noted that the respondent(s) in both petitions had no objection to the delay being condoned. As a condition for allowing the petitions, the Court directed the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 500/- each to the High Court Legal Services Committee attached to the Bench forthwith. The Court stipulated that failure to pay the costs would result in the automatic dismissal of the petitions without further reference to the Court. No specific GST provisions were discussed as the matter was solely about condoning the delay in filing appeals.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 112 days in filing the Writ Appeals should be condoned, considering the reasons provided by the petitioners? The petitioners argued for condonation of delay, citing reasons in their affidavit. The respondent(s) did not object to the condonation. The Court had to decide if the reasons presented were sufficient to justify the significant delay. The revenue's contention was implicitly that the delay was excusable, while the respondent's lack of objection suggested they did not oppose the condonation.