CWP No. 13120 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 13120 of 2010 Date of Decision: 28.7.2010 M/s National Saw Mills ....Petitioner. Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. N.L. Sammi, Advocate for the petitioner. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 13120 to 13123, 13127, 13132, 13136 and 13139 of 2010. Facts are said to be identical in all the petitions. Reference is made to facts of CWP No. 13120 of 2010. 2. Notice of motion to the respondents. 3. Mr. Indresh Goel, Additional Advocate General, Haryana who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 4. The petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 3.5.2010 passed by the Haryana Tax Tribunal (in short “the Tribunal”) under the provisions of Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 5. The petitioner who was a dealer under the said Act, was granted exemption as a new unit. However, the petitioner closed down its business and exemption certificate of the unit was cancelled. On CWP No. 13120 of 2010 -2- appeal against the said order of cancellation, the petitioner approached the Tribunal and sought condonation of delay on the ground that delay of 120 days was on account of illness of the counsel. The Tribunal declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. It was observed that there was no documentary proof of illness of the counsel. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal should have adopted liberal approach in dealing with the application for condonation of delay and illness of counsel should have been treated as a valid ground for condonation. It is submitted that the delay was neither gross nor intentional. 8. We are of the view that though the Tribunal may be justified in observing that in absence of satisfactory evidence, case for condonation of delay was not made out, taking a liberal view and in the interest of justice, delay ought to be condoned on payment of costs. 9. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits, we set aside the impugned order and direct that delay in filing the appeal will stand condoned subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs in each case. Costs will be payable to the Department. 10. A copy of this order be placed on the files of the connected cases. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 28, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE