Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post an Article
Post a New Article
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Co Author :

In case of Co-Author, You may provide Username as per TMI records

Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Articles

Back

All Articles

Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
Sort By:
Relevance Date

One line order dismissing the appeal on ground of delay in submission is invalid

Bimal jain
Revenue Appeal Dismissal Overturned for Lack of Reasoning; Case Remanded for Fresh Decision, Personal Hearing Allowed The Calcutta High Court addressed an appeal dismissal by the revenue department due to a submission delay. The court found the dismissal order invalid as it was a one-line decision lacking detailed reasoning. The petitioner, whose appeal was dismissed, argued that the delay was partly due to the Covid-19 pandemic and was only realized when their bank account was debited. The court set aside the dismissal, remanding the case for a fresh decision on its merits, without focusing on the delay. The petitioner is allowed a personal hearing and may seek a refund of any excess pre-deposit. (AI Summary)

The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the matter of USHA GUPTA, PROPRIETOR OF UR ENTERPRISES VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, SHYAMBAZAR CHARGE, GOVT. OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. - 2022 (8) TMI 1172 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURThas set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the revenue department on the ground that the order passed against the assessee is one-line order dismissing the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay in submission without even supporting detailed reasons.

Facts:

M/s Usha Gupta (“the Petitioner”) has challenged the order dated July 28, 2022 (“the Impugned order”) passed by the revenue department(“the Respondent”) on the ground that the adjudication summary does not contain any reason and specific allegation and no full text of the order along with summary order was furnished to the Petitioner at any point of time and also the Impugned order of the Respondent is a one-line order dismissing the appeal of the Petitioner on the ground of delay in submission of the appeal in question.

Petitioner’s Contention:

  • In support of its contention of delay in filing the appeal, the summary order came to the knowledge of the Petitioner, only when its bank account was debited.
  • The delay in filing the appeal in question, it was submitted that it is protected by the order of the Supreme Court on major part of the delay which occurred during the Covid-19.

Issue:

  • Whether the one- line Impugned order passed by the Respondent dismissing the appeal of the Petitioner on the ground of delay in submission was valid?

Held:

The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court inUSHA GUPTA, PROPRIETOR OF UR ENTERPRISES VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, SHYAMBAZAR CHARGE, GOVT. OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. - 2022 (8) TMI 1172 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT has held as under:

  • The summary order is one-line order without containing any detailed supporting reason and that the order of the Respondent is also one-line order dismissing the appeal of the Petitioner on the ground of delay in filing the appeal without going into the merit of the appeal.
  • Dispose of this writ petition by setting aside the Impugned order and remanding the matter back to the Respondent concerned to pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law on merit of the said appeal without insisting on the issue of limitation, within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order without granting any unnecessary adjournment to the Petitioner.
  • It is needless to mention that at the time of disposal of the appeal in question, the Petitioner or its authorized representative shall be given opportunity of personal hearing. Further the Petitioner is granted by the liberty to make appropriate application in accordance with law for refund of the amount which has been collected in excess of the pre-deposit, before the authority concerned which shall be considered by them in accordance with law.

(Author can be reached at [email protected])

answers
Sort by
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Recent Articles