The court's decision emphasized the discretion of the court in condoning delay, based on the sufficiency of the explanation provided.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Bipin Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. This revision petition has been filed against an order dated July 21, 2022 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal) wherein delay of 1365 days in filing the appeal has been condoned.

3. The question of law, that arises, is as follows:

"A. Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in condoning the delay of 1365 days in filing the appeal of revenue before the Tribunal contrary to the decision of Supreme court in the matter of Chief Post Master General & Ors Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr and State of M.P. Vs. Bhure Lal?"

4. Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist has relied upon a coordinate Bench judgment of this Court in M/s Anil Enterprises v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow (Sales/Trade Tax Revision No.124 of 2020, decided on July 20, 2022) to buttress his argument that such inordinate delay cannot be condoned on wholly vague and generic grounds. The coordinate Bench upon examining the facts in that particular case had held that delay of 530 days should not have been allowed by the Tribunal. The coordinate Bench has relied on Supreme Court's judgment in Postmaster General & Ors. v. Living Media India Limited and Another reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563 to support its judgment.

5. Per contra, Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that in the present case, the Tribunal, while specifically dealing with the reasons provided for the inordinate delay and all the judgments of the Supreme Court, has come to a finding that in the present case, reasons provided for the said delay were justified. He relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment reads as under:

"9. It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay of a very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Once the court accepts the explanation as sufficient, it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first court refuses to condone the delay. In such cases, the superior court would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior court to come to its own finding even untrammelled by the conclusion of the lower court."

6. I have perused the judgments reproduced in the impugned order and find that the impugned order has taken into account the facts of the particular case and examined the sufficiency of cause in relation to the delay. The relevant paragraphs of the impugned orders are delineated below:

"12. In the present case, there is a delay of only 1365 days. The reasons of delay are that there was shortage of employees, employees were busy in B.L.O. duties, no senior assistant, who looks after the proceedings of filing appeal was appointed in the office and there was spread of COVID-19.

13. So far as the ground of spread of COVID-19 is concerned, in this regard, it is notable that Hon'ble Apex Court considering spread of COVID-19 in the country, has directed to exclude the period of limitation for filing the appeals from 15.03.2020 to 22.02.2022. hence, the period of delay from 15.03.2