Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Rhea Distilleries, a partnership firm, challenged an order dated 31/01/2013 passed by the Chief Secretary, Government of Goa, in Appeal No. 16/2011, which rejected the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against an order of the Commissioner of Excise. The petitioner had been issued a licence on 24/04/2000 for manufacturing various spirits. On 01/07/2009, the Superintendent of Excise directed the petitioner to pay separate licence fees for grain spirit for 2009-2010 and also for the period 2001-2002 to 2008-2009. A show cause notice dated 02/06/2010 was issued under Section 16(1) of the Goa Excise Duty Act, 1964, proposing cancellation of licences. The Commissioner of Excise passed an order on 30/09/2011, which the petitioner sought to appeal. The appeal was filed with a delay of 30 days, along with an application for condonation of delay citing the petitioner's illness and time taken to obtain legal advice. The Chief Secretary rejected the condonation application, holding that the reasons were not sufficient. The High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, examined the matter. The court noted that the delay was only 30 days and the explanation provided was plausible. The court held that the Chief Secretary adopted a too strict approach and that a liberal view should be taken in condonation matters. The court set aside the impugned order and allowed the condonation application, directing the Chief Secretary to hear the appeal on merits.
Headnote
A) Condonation of Delay - Sufficient Cause - Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 (applied by analogy) - The court held that the delay of 30 days in filing the appeal was sufficiently explained by the petitioner's illness and the time taken to obtain legal advice, and the Chief Secretary's rejection was too strict and not in consonance with the liberal approach to be adopted in condonation matters (Paras 5-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Chief Secretary erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Excise, and whether the delay of 30 days was sufficiently explained.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order dated 31/01/2013 passed by the Chief Secretary, and allowed the application for condonation of delay dated 31/10/2011. The Chief Secretary was directed to hear the appeal on merits.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Sufficient cause
- Liberal approach
- Article 227 of the Constitution of India
- Goa Excise Duty Act
- 1964
Case Details
WRIT PETITION NO. 662 OF 2013
Mr. Y. V. Nadkarni with Mr. N. Noronha for petitioner; Mr. D. Lawande, Government Advocate for respondent no. 2
The Commissioner of Excise, Government of Goa; Chief Secretary, Government of Goa
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Chief Secretary rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Excise.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to set aside the order dated 31/01/2013 passed by the Chief Secretary and to allow the application dated 31/10/2011 for condonation of delay.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Excise was delayed by 30 days, and the Chief Secretary rejected the condonation application, leading to the filing of the writ petition.
Previous Decisions
The Commissioner of Excise passed an order on 30/09/2011; the Chief Secretary rejected the condonation application on 31/01/2013.
Issues
Whether the Chief Secretary erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
Whether the delay of 30 days was sufficiently explained by the petitioner.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the delay of 30 days was due to the illness of the partner and the time taken to obtain legal advice, which constituted sufficient cause.
The respondent argued that the reasons given were not sufficient and the Chief Secretary's order was correct.
Ratio Decidendi
In matters of condonation of delay, a liberal approach should be adopted, and if the delay is short and the explanation is plausible, the application should be allowed to enable the appeal to be heard on merits.
Judgment Excerpts
The Chief Secretary has adopted a too strict approach in the matter.
The delay is only of 30 days and the explanation given by the petitioner is plausible.
The impugned order is set aside. The application for condonation of delay is allowed.
Procedural History
The petitioner was issued a licence on 24/04/2000. On 01/07/2009, the Superintendent of Excise directed payment of separate licence fees. A show cause notice was issued on 02/06/2010. The Commissioner of Excise passed an order on 30/09/2011. The petitioner filed an appeal on 31/10/2011 with a delay of 30 days along with a condonation application. The Chief Secretary rejected the condonation application on 31/01/2013. The petitioner filed the present writ petition on an unspecified date.
Acts & Sections
- Goa Excise Duty Act, 1964: Section 16(1)
- Constitution of India: Article 227
