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>High Court allows delay of 539 days in tax appeal under Limitation Act, citing officer's inaction.</h1> <h3>Principal Commissioner Versus Essar Oil Ltd.</h3> The High Court allowed the civil application, condoning a delay of 539 days in preferring a tax appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Court ... Condonation of delay in filing appeal - Section 5 of the Limitation Act - Held that: - It is true that there is a delay of 539 days in preferring the tax appeal. However, considering the submissions made in support of the application to condone the delay, we are of the opinion that the delay has been explained sufficiently - when sufficient cause has been shown, the delay is required to be condoned - COD allowed. Issues:Delay in preferring tax appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.Analysis:The case involved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone a delay of 539 days in preferring a tax appeal. The appellant argued that there was no deliberate negligence on their part and that the delay was due to the inaction of a specific officer who failed to file the appeal despite a decision being made. The appellant requested the delay to be condoned to present their meritorious case. The respondent opposed the application, arguing that mere inaction by the department cannot be a ground to condone such a significant delay, citing relevant case law.The High Court, after hearing both parties, found that the delay had been sufficiently explained by the appellant. It was noted that the decision to challenge the CESTAT's decision was taken from the beginning, but due to the deliberate inaction of the concerned officer, the appeal could not be filed within the limitation period. The Court considered the explanations provided in the application and the correspondence on record, concluding that sufficient cause had been shown to condone the delay.The Court distinguished the present case from the cases cited by the respondent, where the delay was not condoned due to insufficient cause shown. In this case, the Court held that one opportunity should be given to the appellant to present their case on merits rather than dismissing it on technical grounds. Therefore, the Court allowed the civil application, condoning the delay in preferring the tax appeal and granting the appellant the chance to submit their case on merits. No costs were awarded in the matter.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
