1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Condonation of Delay: unexplained inordinate delay barred review; no arguable error or miscarriage of justice found on merits.</h1> Two issues were addressed: (i) condonation of a 237 day delay in filing the review petition - the Court applied principles of condonation of delay and ... Review petition - Condonation of delay - Challenge to validity of subrule (20) of rule 17 of the Central Sales Tax (Rajasthan) Rules, 1957 - misrepresentation of fact or by fraud or in contravention of the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - HELD THAT:- The application for listing the Review Petition in open Court is rejected. Despite the fact that there is a delay of 237 days in filing the Review Petition for which no satisfactory explanation has been furnished, we have gone through the same on merits. In our opinion, no case for review of the order [2025 (4) TMI 952 - SUPREME COURT], is made out. The Review Petition is, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits. As a result, the pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of. Issues: (i) Whether the delay of 237 days in filing the Review Petition can be condoned; (ii) Whether the Review Petition merits interference with the earlier order.Issue (i): Whether the delay of 237 days in filing the Review Petition can be condoned.Analysis: The Court examined the applicant's explanation for delay and found it unsatisfactory. The petition was considered despite the admitted delay, but the reasons provided did not justify condonation under the governing principles for extension of time and laches applicable to review proceedings.Conclusion: Delay not condoned; decision adverse to the Revenue and favourable to the assessee.Issue (ii): Whether the Review Petition merits interference with the earlier order.Analysis: On consideration of the Review Petition on merits, the Court found no arguable ground to reopen or review the order dated 16.04.2025 in Civil Appeal No.1208 of 2025, applying the narrow scope of review and the requirement of demonstrable error or miscarriage of justice for review relief.Conclusion: No case made out for review; review petition dismissed on merits; decision adverse to the Revenue and favourable to the assessee.Final Conclusion: The Review Petition is dismissed both on the ground of unexplained delay and on merits, and any pending interlocutory application is disposed of.Ratio Decidendi: A review petition will not be entertained where there is unexplained, inordinate delay and where no arguable error or manifest injustice is shown to justify reopening a final order.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
