Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether mere change in law, without any other mitigating circumstance, constitutes sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing tax revision cases under section 22(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957.
Analysis: The Court held that a subsequent decision altering the legal position does not by itself justify condonation of delay. A litigant who has allowed an adverse order to attain finality cannot later reopen the matter solely because the law has since changed at the instance of another litigant. The earlier view that a change in law may amount to sufficient cause was distinguished in the light of later Supreme Court authority, and the explanations offered for delay were found to be inadequate and unsupported by any other satisfactory circumstances.
Conclusion: Mere change in law, standing alone, is not sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The request for condonation was rightly rejected.
Final Conclusion: The delay applications failed, and the connected tax revision cases could not be entertained.
Ratio Decidendi: A subsequent change in law does not, by itself, constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay where the litigant has acquiesced in the earlier order and offers no independent, satisfactory explanation for the delay.