When a statute prescribes a period of limitation, it is not without any meaning and when the time prescribed for an action runs out, the adversary is entitled to assume that the decision in his favour has come to stand so that such party would work out his activities accordingly.

JUDGMENT

R. N. MISRA, J. - These are eleven applications by M/s. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (Koraput Division) - a Government of India undertaking under the Ministry of Defence - asking for writs of certiorari to quash a common order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal of Orissa in the matter of condonation of delay in preferring eleven second appeals under the Orissa Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against the orders of the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Ganjam Range at Berhampur, setting aside assessments made by the Sales Tax Officer of Koraput I Circle at Jeypore.

2. When the Sales Tax Officer initiated assessment proceedings under the Act, the petitioner-company took the stand that it was engaged in the manufacture of aero engines for the MIG fighter planes for the Union Government and delivery of the aero engines to the Government of India did not constitute "sale". Therefore, the petitioner was not a dealer and the Sales Tax Officer had no jurisdiction to make any assessment. The stand of the petitioner-company was overruled and assessments were completed for different periods, treating the petitioner as an unregistered dealer. Heavy penalties were imposed under section 12(5) of the Act.

3. The petitioner appealed to the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, who came to uphold the contention of the petitioner that the transaction did not constitute "sale" and, therefore, the petitioner had no liability under the Act. The demands of tax and penalty were thus vacated.

4. The appellate orders were received by the appropriate authority under the Act on 12th November, 1973, and second appeals were preferred before the Tribunal by the State of Orissa on 28th May, 1974. Under section 23(3)(a) of the Act, second appeals are preferable within a period of sixty days. There was thus a total delay of 137 days in preferring the second appeals. Applications were filed under the proviso to section 23(3)(a) of the Act for admitting the appeals though filed beyond time as the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeals within the prescribed period. Both parties were heard on the question of limitation and on 19th March, 1976, the Tribunal condoned the delay and directed the appeals to be admitted. This order of the Tribunal condoning the delay is assailed in these proceedings.

5. It is conceded before us that the proviso to section 23(3)(a) of the Act is in terms similar to section 5 of the Limitation Act and the power is discretionary. It is well-settled that when discretion vests in a judicial or quasi-Judicial authority, it has to be exercised in accordance with the well-settled principles of justice and not in an arbitrary manner. It is equally well-settled that when discretionary jurisdiction has been exercised in favour of a party, the same should not be lightly interfered with and much less in a writ proceeding. While not disputing these propositions, Mr. Murty for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is vitiated by arbitrariness, and jurisdiction has been exercised by assuming facts which are not on record.

6. We extract below the whole of one of the applications filed on behalf of the State for condoning the delay :

"1. That the first appeal orders for the year 1970-71 were received on 7th January, 1974, in the office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Orissa.

2. That there has been unavoidable delay of 81 days in filing of the second appeals.

3. That the delay was unavoidable because of inevitable processing in the office in getting the records from the office of the Sales Tax Officer, Jeypore, as well as from the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Berhampur.

4. That as the amounts of tax involved in dispute are quite substantial, a conscientious examination had to be ensured before filing of these appeals.

A detailed objection was filed on behalf of the assessee. Thereafter, a rejoinder was filed on behalf of the State wherein it was claimed that the