Back
2024 Supreme(Cal) 741
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
T.S. Sivagnanam, Supratim Bhattacharya, JJ.
Ms. Poonam Jaiswal, Proprietress of M/s. Sushil Steels - Petitioner
Versus
The Superintendent, Range – II, Shibpur Division & Ors. – Respondents
M.A.T. 661 of 2023 With I.A. No. CAN 1, 2 of 2023
Decided On : 30-01-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Sukalpa Seal, Mr. Bhaskar Sengupta
For the Respondent: Ms. Hasi Saha, Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Mr. Abhradip Maity
The court has the discretion to condone the delay in filing an appeal if sufficient cause is shown. The appealability of an order was also considered, and the court affirmed the order of the learned Single Bench.
Headnote:
Appeal - Delay in filing - Condonation of delay
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed with a delay of 55 days, and the court considered the affidavit filed in support of the petition, finding sufficient cause for the delay.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the appeal and condoned the delay in filing the appeal. In another case, the court dismissed the intra-Court appeal and affirmed the order of the learned Single Bench, extending the time for filing the statutory appeal by three weeks.
Issues: Delay in filing the appeal, appealability of the impugned order
Ratio Decidendi: The court found sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal and allowed the appeal. In the second case, the court affirmed the order of the learned Single Bench and extended the time for filing the statutory appeal.
Final Decision: The delay in filing the appeal was condoned in the first case, and the appeal was allowed. In the second case, the intra-Court appeal was dismissed, and the order of the learned Single Bench was affirmed, with an extension of time for filing the statutory appeal.
JUDGMENT :
T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.
In Re: I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2023
1. We have heard Mr. Seal, learned advocate appearing for the appellant, Ms. Saha, learned advocate for the respondent no.5/Union of India and Mr. Kundalia, learned advocate appearing for the respondent/CGST authority.
2. There is a delay of 55 days in filing the appeal. We have perused the affidavit filed in support of the petition and we find that sufficient cause has been shown for not being able to prefer the appeal within the period of limitation.
3. Accordingly, I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2023 is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
In Re:M.A.T. 661 of 2023
4. This intra-Court appeal by the writ petitioner is directed against the order dated 17th January, 2023 in W.P.A. 350 of 2023 by which the writ petition was dismissed.
5. Since the order, which was impugned in the writ petition was an appealable order, we find no ground to take a different view of the matter.
6. Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application (CAN 2 of 2023) is dismissed and the order passed by the learned Single Bench is affirmed and the time for filing the statutory appeal before the appellate authority in terms of the liberty granted by the learned Single Bench is extended by a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of server copy of this judgement and order.
7. No costs.
8. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance of all legal formalities.
SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA, J.- I agree.
