TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Court dismisses appeal challenging delay and jurisdiction, upholding time-barred petition.</h1> The High Court dismissed the petition challenging orders regarding appeal delay, jurisdictional issues, and delay in instituting the petition. The Court ... Condonation of delay in filing appeal - appeal was instituted beyond period of 90 days, beyond the period of maximum extendable period by the Appellate Authority - HELD THAT:- There is absolutely no explanation for inordinate delay in the institution of the petition. The averment in the petition is that there is no delay or laches in instituting this petition. Therefore, the petitioner, far from acknowledging the delay and explaining the same, does not even admit that there is any delay or laches. This is an additional ground for dismissing this petition. Petition dismissed. Issues:Challenge to orders dated 24.07.2015, 20.04.2016, and 06.10.2017 regarding condonation of appeal delay beyond 90 days, jurisdictional issues, and delay in instituting the petition.Analysis:1. The petition challenged orders dated 24.07.2015, 20.04.2016, and 06.10.2017 concerning the delay in filing an appeal beyond the 90-day limit. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal as time-barred, a decision upheld by the Tribunal. Citing legal precedents, the High Court emphasized that the Appellate Authority lacks the power to condone delays exceeding 90 days, as established by the Supreme Court and Full Benches of other High Courts. The High Court found no merit in challenging these orders due to the binding legal principles.2. The petitioner contested the order dated 24.07.2015, arguing that the extended limitation period was wrongly invoked by the Assistant Commissioner without evidence of deliberate duty evasion. The petitioner claimed the assessment was time-barred and lacked jurisdiction, asserting the goods were used for excisable goods manufacturing without duty evasion. The respondent countered these arguments, stating they did not challenge the jurisdiction or principles of natural justice. The High Court ruled that such contentions did not fall within the scope of judicial review but could be relevant for appellate jurisdiction.3. The High Court highlighted the petitioner's significant delay in instituting the petition, filed on 29th September 2018 despite the final order being issued on 6th October 2017. The petitioner failed to provide any explanation for the substantial delay, claiming no delay or laches existed. The Court noted the lack of acknowledgment or explanation for the delay as an additional ground for dismissing the petition. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, considering the delay and lack of merit in the challenges presented.4. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the petition based on the lack of merit in challenging the orders, the issues raised not falling under judicial review, and the significant delay in instituting the petition. No costs were awarded in the present circumstances.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
