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.
<h1>Refusal to condone 248-day delay; appeal dismissed for want of prosecution and also on merits</h1> SC refused to condone a 248-day delay, finding no error in the impugned order or sufficient explanation to liberalize the delay. After reviewing the ... Condonation of delay of 248 days - HELD THAT:- The order impugned is perused to ascertain whether it is a fit case to liberally construe the explanation to condone the delay. However, there are no palpable error in the order impugned. The Appeal is dismissed both on ground of delay as well as on merits. The Appeal was reported to be delayed by 248 days. The Court perused the impugned order to determine whether it was a 'fit case to liberally construe the explanation to condone the delay' and found no 'palpable error' in that order. On that basis the Court concluded that the explanation for delay could not be so construed and proceeded to consider merits, ultimately finding no error warranting interference. The Appeal was therefore 'dismissed both on ground of delay as well as on merits.' The reasoning rests on refusal to relax the delay requirement in the absence of a satisfactory explanation and on an independent assessment of the impugned order's correctness.