VIKRAM NATH, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri S.D. Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.
(2.) BOTH the above revisions arise out of the common order of the Tribunal dated March 26, 2004, whereby the appeals of the dealer for the assessment year 1994 -95 (U.P.) and 1995 -96 (U.P.) were dismissed affirming the order of the appellate authority dated March 16, 2002 rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeals and consequently the appeals also. The questions of law sought to be raised in these applications are as follows: (A) Whether the substantial right of appeal could be eclipsed on a delay of 18 days in filing the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)? (B) Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the delay was not satisfactorily explained is perverse? (C) Whether the finding of the Tribunal to disbelieve the explanation of delay is based on presumptions and conjectures?(D) Whether the finding of dismissal of appeal for delay is wholly arbitrary and unjustified?
(3.) IN effect the question of law which arises is whether the Tribunal was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case in refusing to condone the delay.;