Tax Consultant's Negligence Leads to Case Remand, Requiring 20% Tax Deposit and Rs.5 Lakhs Cost Within Six Weeks

SC remanded tax adjudication orders due to tax consultant's negligence. Court set aside ex parte orders and directed fresh proceedings within six weeks, conditional on petitioner depositing 20% disputed tax and paying Rs.5 lakhs cost. Decision emphasized as exceptional, not precedential, highlighting importance of professional diligence in legal proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
The issues involved in this case are the challenge against impugned orders in original dated 12th March, 2022, and the impugned orders of the appellate authority dated 20th April, 2023, on the ground of inordinate delay of 9 months.

Impugned Adjudication Orders and Delay in Filing Appeals:
The petitioner challenged the impugned adjudication orders due to them being ex parte, attributing the delay in participating in the proceedings and filing the appeals to the lapse and laches of the petitioner's tax consultant. The consultant failed to inform the petitioner about show-cause notices and subsequent orders, resulting in the confirmation of tax demands. The petitioner, a company, was unaware of these proceedings until later, leading to recovery notices being issued to debtors. Despite the duty of the company to be diligent, the Court considered the lapse of the tax consultant as unprofessional conduct and accepted the petitioner's readiness to pay a cost of Rs.5 lakhs for condonation of delay.

Decision and Remand:
In light of the facts presented, the Court set aside the impugned orders of the appellate authority and the adjudication orders. The matters were remanded back to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication orders within six weeks, subject to the petitioner making a deposit of 20% of the disputed tax and paying the cost of Rs.5 lakhs for condoning the delay. The petitioner agreed to make these payments within two weeks and provide proof of payment. The Court emphasized that this decision was based on exceptional circumstances and should not be considered a precedent, urging timely adjudication without unnecessary adjournments.

This writ petition, WPA 23005 of 2023, was disposed of with the above observations and directions.

---