TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Dismissal of Delayed Appeal Restoration Motion due to Negligence</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX Versus GLAXO SMITHKLINE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.</h3> The Bombay High Court dismissed a Notice of Motion seeking condonation of a 947-day delay in filing an application for restoration of an appeal dismissed ... Restoration of appeal - Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution - Held that:- It is not the case of the applicant that this Court dismissed the appeal when the name of the Advocate or the parties were incorrectly printed or that there was no name of the Advocate mentioned as against the parties’ description. Thus, there was no mistake or error in printing of the daily board. The matter was notified in terms of the computerized programme. In such circumstances, it was solely the responsibility of the applicant to have remained present and the absence of the Advocate does not mean that this Court should necessarily proceed to restore such appeal. All the more, when the Department took nearly three years to notice the dismissal, this is a case of gross negligence on the part of the Department and which cannot be condoned. - Condonation denied. The Bombay High Court dismissed a Notice of Motion seeking condonation of a 947-day delay in filing an application for restoration of an appeal dismissed for want of prosecution. The Court found no procedural lapse and deemed the Department's delay in noticing the dismissal as gross negligence. The Motion was dismissed, and the Court directed the Senior Official in charge of legal matters to take action against those responsible for the situation.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
