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>Appellate Tribunal dismisses appeal and review petition due to non-compliance with penalty pre-deposit rule.</h1> <h3>Shri Ashutosh Saha Versus The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Kolkata</h3> The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's non-compliance with the pre-deposit of penalty, leading to the appeal's dismissal. A ... Appeal for non-compliance of pre-deposit of penalty - Held that:- All the information provided proves that the conduct of the appellant/his counsel has not been very honest and they have tried to misguide the tribunal. That they have failed to file a review petition within a reasonable time is apparent from above, and are now coming up with some ground or the other. The judgements relied upon by the learned counsel of the appellant during hearing as ground do not help them as none of the Judgements deals with condonation of delay when the conduct of the appellant in making the said application is in doubt. The Miscellaneous Application for condonation of delay in filing the Review Petition is therefore, dismissed. Issues:1. Non-compliance with pre-deposit of penalty leading to dismissal of appeal by the Appellate Tribunal.2. Review Petition filed after a significant delay requesting recalling of the order and condoning the delay.3. Arguments presented regarding breach of principles of natural justice, illiteracy of the appellant, and relevant case laws cited.4. Examination of the conduct of the appellant and the timeline of events leading to the Review Petition.5. Legal principles applied in deciding on the condonation of delay in filing the Review Petition.Analysis:1. The Appellate Tribunal had dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's failure to comply with the pre-deposit of penalty as mandated by the tribunal's orders. Despite extensions granted, the pre-deposit was not made, leading to the dismissal of the appeal on 21st May 2009.2. The Review Petition filed on 20th December 2011, more than two and a half years later, sought to recall the order and condone the delay in filing. The appellant argued that they did not receive copies of the relevant orders and cited issues of natural justice and illiteracy as reasons for the delay.3. The appellant's counsel relied on various judgments to support the argument for condonation of delay, emphasizing the appellant's innocence and illiteracy as sufficient cause. However, the respondent contended that the appellant's conduct, including non-compliance with the pre-deposit order, indicated a lack of interest in following court orders.4. The tribunal examined the timeline of events, including contradictory statements regarding when the appellant became aware of the final order. The appellant's conduct, as evidenced by correspondence and lack of evidence supporting their claims, raised doubts about the honesty of their intentions in filing the Review Petition.5. Applying legal principles from relevant judgments, the tribunal emphasized the need for a liberal but reasonable approach in condoning delay. The lack of bona fides, conduct, and behavior of the appellant were crucial factors in the decision. Given the appellant's failure to make the pre-deposit even during the proceedings, the Miscellaneous Application for condonation of delay was dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the Review Petition as well.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
