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>Tax reassessment against corporate debtor after IBC resolution plan approval u/s31-delayed SLP dismissed on limitation, merits</h1> The dominant issue was whether the SC should entertain a Special Leave Petition filed with a 359-day delay challenging an HC order that quashed ... Validity of income tax proceedings once company dissolved - resolution plan approved u/s 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 on tax authorities -delay of 359 days in filing the Special Leave Petition As decided by HC [2024 (9) TMI 426 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held in favour of the Assessee quashing various proceedings for reassessment initiated against a corporate debtor that had undergone a resolution under the IBC. HELD THAT:- There is a gross delay of 359 days in filing the Special Leave Petition which has not been satisfactorily explained by the petitioner. Even otherwise, we see no good ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. The Special Leave Petition is, therefore, dismissed on the ground of delay as well as merits. Issues: (i) Whether the inordinate delay in filing the Special Leave Petition is satisfactorily explained so as to permit exercise of discretionary jurisdiction; (ii) Whether interference with the impugned High Court order on merits is warranted.Issue (i): Whether the delay of 359 days in filing the Special Leave Petition was satisfactorily explained to justify condonation of delay.Analysis: The petition involves assessment of the explanation offered for the 359-day delay and whether that explanation meets the threshold for condonation of delay in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction. The determination addresses both sufficiency of the explanation and the discretionary principle that inordinate and unexplained delay may preclude grant of relief by the appellate forum.Conclusion: The delay of 359 days was not satisfactorily explained and therefore condonation of delay was refused.Issue (ii): Whether, notwithstanding the delay, interference with the impugned High Court order on merits is justified.Analysis: The matter required assessment whether any substantial question of law or exceptional circumstance existed that would warrant upsetting the High Court's order despite procedural lapse. The review encompassed consideration of the merits of the challenge and whether interference would be appropriate in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction.Conclusion: There were no sufficient grounds to interfere with the impugned High Court order on merits.Final Conclusion: The petition was dismissed both for inordinate unexplained delay and for lack of merit, resulting in denial of discretionary relief and leaving the impugned order intact.Ratio Decidendi: Where a Special Leave Petition is filed with an inordinate unexplained delay, discretionary relief will be refused, and absent exceptional grounds or a compelling legal error, interference with a High Court order on merits will not be granted.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
