Page 242 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

144 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
gaum reported in 2014 (304) E.L.T. 751. Though the Tribunal made it clear that
sending Order to a wrong address is definitely not covered in the said mandate
but as the Commissioner (Appeals) has held and in the given circumstances, this
Tribunal is also of the opinion that present is not the case of the wrong address. It
is merely a typographical error that too of merely one slash being substituted by
numeral one. Rest of the address apparently and admittedly is same. It cannot be
presumed from any stretch of imagination that the postal services of the particu-
lar area will not be in a position to make out the said error.
7. Finally coming to the letter of the appellant vide which they request-
ed for the Order-in-Original, it is observed that no such reason of wrong address
is mentioned in the said letter. Rather the letter is specifically mentioning the de-
tails of the Order-in-Original. There is nothing on record as to when and how the
appellant acquired those details which again is sufficient to hold that the Order-
in-Original was very much in the knowledge and notice of the appellant. It is due
to the earlier noticed dilatory tactics and the negligent attitude of the appellant
that the same was not pursued in time.
8. Law of limitation intends to fix a time-limit to a ‘lis’ which has to be
mandatorily followed. Though there has been a catena of judgments that the
merits of the case have always to be preferred instead of dismissing the ‘lis’
merely on technical grounds but those decisions are ample clear to hold that
whenever there is an apparent mala fide/negligence on the part of the appellant
that the mandate of the procedural law of limitation must be given the full effect.
I draw my support from N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishanamurthy reported in 2008
(228) E.L.T. 162 (S.C.) :
“Though every day delay has some lapse on the part of the litigant con-
cerned however that alone is not enough to turn down his pleas and to shut
the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is
put forward as part of a dilatory strategy, the Court must show utmost con-
sideration to the litigant except when there is a reasonable ground to hold
that delay was occasioned by the litigant deliberately to gain time then the
Court should lean against the expense of explanation.”
9. Seeing from the entire above discussion, I hold no infirmity in the
Order under challenge. Appeal accordingly is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)

_______

GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  306