https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237403 A condonation application failed because the explanation for a one year and four months delay was inconsistent and vague, with material differences between the facts presented before the Tribunal and those urged in the High Court. The court treated the delay as deliberate inaction, negligence and laches rather than a legally acceptable impediment, and found no cogent basis to exercise discretion in favour of condonation. The refusal to condone the delay was therefore upheld. en-us Tue, 17 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Sep 2014 16:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237403 A condonation application failed because the explanation for a one year and four months delay was inconsistent and vague, with material differences between the facts presented before the Tribunal and those urged in the High Court. The court treated the delay as deliberate inaction, negligence and laches rather than a legally acceptable impediment, and found no cogent basis to exercise discretion in favour of condonation. The refusal to condone the delay was therefore upheld. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 17 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237403