TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Challenge to tax assessment set aside for breaching interim order fails as 730-day delay in appeal not excused</h1> The dominant issue was whether the SC should condone an inordinate delay in filing an SLP challenging an HC order that had set aside an assessment on the ... Validity of reopening of assessment - present petition has been filed impugning the order [2023 (8) TMI 1690 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] passed by the High Court at Calcutta vide which the Writ Petition filed by the respondent was allowed and an order of assessment passed by the Department in violation of the interim order passed in favour of the respondent was set aside only on that ground [2023 (3) TMI 1608 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] - Delay of 730 days in filing the present petition - HELD THAT:- The application for condonation of delay hardly justifies condonation of such a huge delay in filing the petition. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the Special Leave Petition is also dismissed with cost of ₹50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) for filing the present petition after such a huge delay. Issues: (i) Whether the inordinate delay of 730 days in filing the Special Leave Petition should be condoned; (ii) Whether the Special Leave Petition should be entertained despite the delay and what consequential directions, if any, should be issued.Issue (i): Whether the inordinate delay of 730 days in filing the Special Leave Petition should be condoned.Analysis: The Court examined the adequacy of the applicant's justification for the substantial delay and applied the established discretionary standard for condonation of delay in appellate petitions. The reasoning focuses on whether the explanation rendered a sufficient cause to excuse the prolonged non-compliance with prescribed time limits and whether the interests of justice warranted exercise of discretion to admit the delayed petition. The Court found the explanation insufficient to meet the threshold for condonation given the length of delay and absence of compelling circumstances.Conclusion: The application for condonation of delay is refused.Issue (ii): Whether the Special Leave Petition should be entertained despite the delay and what consequential directions should follow.Analysis: Having refused condonation, the Court addressed the appropriate consequential disposition and ancillary directions. The Court applied its authority to impose a cost for filing a delayed petition and specified administrative directions for payment and transmission of the order for information. The Court also disposed of pending applications as a consequence of the primary ruling on delay.Conclusion: The Special Leave Petition is dismissed and a costs order is directed, together with ancillary directions for payment and for communication of the order; pending applications are disposed of.Final Conclusion: The decision confirms that where a petition is filed after a very substantial delay without adequate explanation, the Court will decline to exercise its discretionary power to condone the delay and will refuse to entertain the petition, while retaining the authority to impose costs and issue ancillary administrative directions.Ratio Decidendi: An appellate court will refuse condonation of delay and decline to admit a substantially delayed petition where the explanation for the delay is inadequate, and may impose costs and ancillary administrative directions as a consequence.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
