1. The facts that have given rise to this appeal are that the appellant, a dealer purchased tiles from the consigner M/s Evita Tiles Lt., against C-Form No. 02V830892, during the period commencing from 17-6-2000 to 28-08-2000, and availed concessional rate of tax against the purchases. The perusal of the registration certificate of the appellant revealed that he was not registered for the purchase of the tiles during the period stated above but was registered as such w.e.f. 07-09-2000 only. All the purchases made by the appellant were thus unauthorized as per the status of his certificate of registration. He also contravened the tenets of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 by the issuance of aforementioned C-Forms. The Assessing Authority vide his order dated 11-01-2010 held the appellant liable to penalty to the tune of RS. 37,718.10 under section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. This order of the Assessing Authority was assailed by the appellant in an appeal before the Dy. Commissioner, Sales Tax (Appeals), who vide order dated 18-12-2010 dismissed the appeal of the appellant summarily on the grounds that the appeal is time barred and that the appellant has failed to comply with the terms of clause (c) of the 2nd proviso to Section 11 of the Jammu and Kashmir General Sales Tax Act, 1962. 2. The appellant has, in his appeal filed before this Tribunal, assailed the order of the Dy. Commissioner, Commmercial Taxes (Appeals), Jammu interalia on the grounds that the reasons for delay in filing the appeal were explained by him and he had sought time from Dy. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Jammu, for getting stay from Ld. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Jammu but to his dismay the said Authority dismissed his appeal for want of filing the proof of payment of 50% of penalty imposed on him 3. I have heard the arguments advanced at the bar and I have given my thoughtful consideration to the material on record. 4. What requires consideration is to see whether the order of the Appellate Authority can be maintained on the reasoning projected therein, i.e. whether the appellant was obliged to file proof of payment of 50% of the penalty imposed on him by the Assessing Authority, as per the requirement of clause (c) of the 2nd proviso to Jammu and Kashmir General Sales Tax Act, 1962. In order to have a proper understanding of the matter it will be appropriate to reproduce the relevant excerpts of the proviso added to Section 11 of the Jammu and Kashmir General Sales Tax Act, 1962, herein below:- "Section 11:-..Provided further that no appeal shall be entertained by the said authority unless it is satisfied that:- (a) where all the returns for a year have been filed, the amount of tax due under this Act on the turnover of sales or purchases, as the case may be, admitted by the appellant in the returns filed by him or at any stage in any proceedings under this Act, whichever is higher, has been paid; or (b) Where some of the returns for a year have not been filed or no return has been filed for such year, the amount of tax due under this Act, admitted by the appellant in the returns, if any, filed by him or at any stage in any proceedings under this Act or 20% of the amount of tax assessed, whichever is higher, has been paid; or (c) in case the appeal is against the imposition of penalty, 50% of the penalty levied has been paid; [Provided that the Appellate Authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, stay the recovery of the disputed amount of tax and penalty. However, the stay will not cover the amount of tax and penalty payable under clauses (a), (b) and of the 2nd Proviso] Explanation:- Nothing in this sub-section shall apply to the cases where the Commissioner in exercise of the powers vested under Section 8 makes an order extending the date of payment. 5. From the perusal of the Section 11 Supra, what comes to the fore is that the payment of 50% of the penalty, where the appeal is against the order of imposition of penalty, is a statutory requirement. The terms of Section 11 clause (c) are mandatory in nature as the word used is "shall". Section 11 (c) gives the Appellate Authority the teeth to proceed in a matter. The terms of Section 11 clause (c) are mandatory in nature as the word used is "shall". Section 11 (c) gives the Appellate Authority the teeth to proceed in a matter. Filing of the proof of having paid 50% of the penalty levied is a condition precedent for lodging an appeal before the Appellate Authority which, as per the explanation added to Section 11, can be relaxed only where the extension of the date of payment, is granted, by an order, made by the Commissioner, in exercise of the powers vested in him under section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir General Sales Tax Act, 1962. This has not been done in this case. This condition cannot be waived by any other means or any other Authority. It has a binding force the intention being to ensure that the appellant is prosecuting the appeal with due diligence, in good faith and with an honest intention and not for the heck of it. There thus seems to be no reason to take a view contrary to the one expressed by the Appellate Authority in her order. 6. As far as the 2nd ground is concerned the appeal has to be filed within a period of 30 days before the Ld. Dy. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Appeals) but he has not done so. Section 11(1) of the Jammu and Kashmir General Sales Tax Act, 1962 which assumes significance here reads as under:- Section 11:- (1) A dealer or any other assessee objecting to an order passed by the Assessing Authority or any other officer authorized under section 15-A , other than the Deputy Sales Tax Commissioner, may within 30 days from the date on which he is served with the notice of demand, appeal to the appellate authority or if the order is made by the Deputy Commissioner, to the Commissioner; Provided that the Appellate Authority may admit an appeal after the said period of thirty days, if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the said period. 7. The Section makes it abundantly clear that an appeal should be filed within a period of 30 days. The appellant has not done so. 7. The Section makes it abundantly clear that an appeal should be filed within a period of 30 days. The appellant has not done so. Section 12-B Jammu and Kashmir General Sales Tax Act which assumes significance here reads as under:- Section 12-B:- the provisions of Sections 5 and 12 of the Limitation Act, Samvat 1995, shall apply to the appeals and revisions filed under this Act before the Appellate, Reviewing Authorities or the Tribunal. 8. Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides as under:- Extension of prescribed period in certain cases:- ".Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period" 9. The order passed by the Assessing Authority is dated 01-10-2009 and the appeal has been filed by the appellant on 07-12-2009 i.e. after the time prescribed for such filing. From the perusal of the record of Appellate Authority what comes to the fore is that In form ST-48 in the Column No.-9 that is "Whether the appeal is in time, if not give reasons for the delay", the response of the appellant has been that due to health problem the dealer could not file the appeal in time. 10. The appellant has neither produced any medical certificate nor any prescription in support of his appeal nor has he filed any application for the condonation of delay before the Appellate Authority. 11. On the plain reading of Section 5 it becomes clear that if an appeal is filed after the period provided for such filing, the appellant must seek condonation of delay and it is he who has to prove the existence of a sufficient cause, to the satisfaction of the Court, a condition precedent, for the court to exercise its discretion in the matter of condoning the delay. This discretion is a judicial discretion and not an arbitrary one. Where sufficient cause is not shown, to the satisfaction of the Court, no question of condonation of delay arises. This discretion is a judicial discretion and not an arbitrary one. Where sufficient cause is not shown, to the satisfaction of the Court, no question of condonation of delay arises. Nothing further has to be done in such an eventuality and the appeal has to be dismissed on that ground alone, irrespective of whether limitation is, or, is not, set up as a ground of attack or defence. The Court can suo motto look into that aspect also. The law of limitation has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribed and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds as has been held in P.K. Rama V/S State of Kerala and Anr. reported in AIR 1998 S.C. 2276 . 12. There is no evidence to suggest that the appellant was prevented, by any cause, to file the appeal within the prescribed time under section 11 of the J&K General Sales Tax Act, 1962 . No Application has been filed, by the appellant, even on that count In the memo of appeal also now nowhere has it been explained, with evidence, that any circumstances or cause prevented the appellant to file the appeal within time. Absolutely No attempt has, thus, been made by the appellant to suggest, even by a whisper of evidence, that he had a bona fide cause in filing the appeal after the statutory period. 13. Viewed in the context of what has been premised above, the appeal of the appellant is barred by limitation The statutory requirement as envisaged by clause (b) of the 2nd proviso to Jammu and Kashmir General Sales Tax Act, 1962 has also not been complied with. The appeal of the appellant as such merits dismissal. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed. Record, summoned, if any, be returned forthwith. File be consigned to records after its due completion. Announced.