https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262987 Condonation of delay in restoring an appeal was refused because the dismissal for want of prosecution had been duly reflected on the computerized daily board, with no printing or notification defect attributable to the court. The absence of counsel on the hearing date did not amount to a procedural lapse by the court, while the department's nearly three-year failure to notice the dismissal was treated as gross negligence and the explanation for delay as routine and lacking bona fides. Restoration was therefore declined, and departmental legal officers were directed to initiate action against those responsible for the lapse. en-us Mon, 10 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Oct 2015 14:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262987 Condonation of delay in restoring an appeal was refused because the dismissal for want of prosecution had been duly reflected on the computerized daily board, with no printing or notification defect attributable to the court. The absence of counsel on the hearing date did not amount to a procedural lapse by the court, while the department's nearly three-year failure to notice the dismissal was treated as gross negligence and the explanation for delay as routine and lacking bona fides. Restoration was therefore declined, and departmental legal officers were directed to initiate action against those responsible for the lapse. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 10 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262987