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>Court dismisses motion for delay condonation, criticizes Revenue officials' negligence in legal case management</h1> <h3>The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Versus M/s. Twenty First Century Wire Rods Ltd.</h3> The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Versus M/s. Twenty First Century Wire Rods Ltd. - TMI Issues:Condonation of delay in setting aside an order rejecting an appeal due to non-removal of office objections.Analysis:1. The motion sought condonation of a 639-day delay in setting aside an order dated August 25, 2016, rejecting an appeal for non-removal of office objections. The counsel for the applicant stated that the delay was due to changes in panel counsel for the Excise Department and the reorganization of the department following the implementation of the Goods and Service Tax Act in 2017.2. The court noted that the affidavit in support did not mention when the respondent first became aware of the rejection of the appeal. The court emphasized that the change in panel advocates did not excuse the Revenue officers from staying informed about the proceedings and appointing a new advocate promptly. The court highlighted the negligence on the part of the Revenue for not taking appropriate steps to address the situation.3. Referring to a previous case involving the Commissioner of Income Tax, the court emphasized the responsibility of Revenue officials to actively manage legal cases and appeals, rather than delegating the task to junior staff. The court criticized the negligent and careless attitude of Revenue officials in handling appeals involving significant tax amounts, stating that the officials expected leniency from the court without taking necessary actions to rectify their lapses.4. The court concluded that the reasons provided by the applicant to condone the delay were not satisfactory, as they indicated negligence on the part of the Revenue. Consequently, the motion seeking condonation of delay was dismissed.In summary, the court dismissed the motion seeking condonation of a delay in setting aside an order rejecting an appeal due to non-removal of office objections, citing the negligence of Revenue officials in staying informed about the proceedings and taking necessary actions promptly.
TaxTMI 