Just a moment...
We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:
1. Basic
• Quick overview summary answering your query with references
• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
• Detailed report covering:
- Overview Summary
- Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
- Relevant Case Laws
- Tariff / Classification / HSN
- Expert views from TaxTMI
- Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy
• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.
Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petition for condonation of delay of 2262 days in filing the appeal against the Order-in-Original may be allowed.
Analysis: The Tribunal examined the cause of delay alleged by the applicant, namely reliance on filing an application under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme (SVLDRS) and non-receipt of communication of rejection. The Tribunal found that the outer appellate date expired on 10.04.2018 whereas the SVLDRS came into force in November 2019; the applicant could not reasonably await a future scheme. The Tribunal also noted that the SVLDRS application was rejected on departmental records within days and that the applicant provided no documentary evidence showing that rejection was conveyed to them only in November 2023. The availability of progress/status on the Department's website and the applicant's failure to check or produce evidence were taken into account. The Tribunal distinguished cited precedents on their facts and held that the applicant's conduct amounted to negligence and inordinate delay not warranting exercise of discretion in favour of condonation.
Conclusion: The petition for condonation of delay is dismissed and the discretionary remedy of condonation is refused (decision in favour of Revenue).