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 dismisses motion due to delay, criticizes Revenue dept for negligence</h1> <h3>The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Daman Commissionerate Versus Jai Corporation Ltd.</h3> The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Daman Commissionerate Versus Jai Corporation Ltd. - TMI Issues: Condonation of delay in filing motion to set aside self-operating order.In this judgment by the Bombay High Court, the applicant sought condonation of a 746-day delay in filing a motion to set aside a self-operating order dated 10.12.2015. The order rejected the applicant's appeal under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (O.S.) Rules for failing to remove office objections by 07.01.2016. The affidavit in support of the motion attributed the delay to frequent transfers of officers in the applicant department, leading to a loss of follow-up on the appeal. The court noted that the new GST Act coming into force reconstituted the department, hindering proper steps to set aside the order. However, the court found the reasons provided in the affidavit insufficient to justify the delay, citing negligence on the part of the applicant.Referring to a previous case, the court emphasized the responsibility of the Revenue to appoint and depute responsible officials to follow up on legal cases. The court criticized the practice of passing on responsibilities to junior staff and noted the negligence and callousness of Revenue officials in pursuing appeals diligently. The court highlighted that the transfers of department officers did not excuse the Revenue from prosecuting appeals sincerely and vigilantly. The court concluded that the reasons presented in the affidavit did not inspire confidence and demonstrated a casual approach by the Revenue in prosecuting appeals before the court.Ultimately, the court declined to condone the delay of 746 days for setting aside the order dated 10.12.2015 passed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master, leading to the dismissal of the Notice of Motion. The judgment underscores the importance of diligence and responsibility in pursuing legal matters, especially when significant tax implications are involved, and criticizes a lax attitude towards legal proceedings by government officials.
TaxTMI 