Substantial delay in appeals requires cogent explanation; unexplained post-judgment delay cannot be casually condoned.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 26^th day of March 2026 Devan Ramachandran, J The petitioner impugns the orders of the Kerala Value Added Tax/Agricultural Income Tax & Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kottayam (‘Tribunal’ for short), which condoned the delay of nearly 932 days in filing statutory appeals by the respondents herein.

2. Smt.Haritha A.J - learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the impugned orders are illegal and unlawful for the singular reason that, it itself records that the delay of nearly a year - out of the afore 932 days - which was caused after WP(C)No.189/2022 had been disposed of by this Court on 20.10.2023, has not been explained at all. She argued that in such scenario, it was wholly impermissible for the applications in question to have been allowed by the learned Tribunal. She contended that, when the affidavit in support of the application for delay preferred by the respondents has made averments in a very cavailer manner - as if they are entitled to have the delay condoned as a matter of right, the learned Tribunal ought not to have allowed it at all, but to have rejected it. She prayed that these Original Petitions be, therefore, allowed.

3. Smt.Thushara James – learned Senior Government Pleader in response, submitted that, as evident from the impugned orders, the learned Tribunal has noticed that there are valid grounds in appeal for the Revenue in these matters; and that, if the opportunity of filing statutory appeals is denied, it would cause huge loss to the exchequer. She contended that this is not a case where the delay has not been explained; but, on the other hand, it has been pointed out in the affidavit in support of the applications that the statutory appeals had not been filed because an Original Petition before this Court had been pending. She however, conceded that the said Original Petition was disposed of on 20.10.2023, while the statutory appeals were filed only on 03.07.2024, but explained that this was because the “officers had to obtain instructions and administrative clearances for filing them”, especially in view of the judgment of this Court. She prayed that hence these Original Petitions be dismissed. 4. When we evaluate the afore rival submission on the touchstone of the orders involved in these cases, we are strongly persuaded to the view that the mentation of the learned Tribunal, as presently worded, cannot find forensic approval. The delay caused is, admittedly, 932 days, and this is very substantial. Even if the State has valid reasons to file statutory appeals, It is up to them to explain the delay cogently, but could not have filed applications in a rather mechanical manner, saying that the delay was caused because the writ petition was pending before this Court. The learned Tribunal could have been justified in accepting this, had the statutory appeals been filed immediately, or within a reasonable time, after the judgment of this Court had been delivered in WP(C)No. 189/2022. However, it is conceded that even thereafter, there was a delay of over nine months, the appeals having been filed only on 03.07.2024. 5. When one examines the affidavits filed in support of the applications for condonation of delay by the State – produced as Ext.P5 in all these cases – they do not even whisperingly mention why there was any delay caused after the judgment of this Court was delivered in WP(C)No.189/2022. When it is conceded that the said judgment was dated 20.10.2023, and when the statutory appeals were attempted before the learned Tribunal only on 03.07.2024, it was certainly up to the Revenue to explain this portion also in a reasonable manner; because this is the requirement that has been well settled through several Judicial pronouncements, including that of the Honourable Supreme Court.

6. In fact, the Hon’ble Supreme Cou