News Update

India received foreign remittance of USD 111 bn in 2022, says UNPitroda resigns as Chairman of Indian Overseas Congress over racist remarkGovt hosts workshop on improving Ease of Doing Business in Mining sectorI-T - Anything made taxable by rule-making authority u/s 17(2)(viii) should be 'perquisite' in form of 'fringe benefits or amenity': SCCus - Drawback - Revenue contends that appeal of exporter ought to have been dismissed by Tribunal as not maintainable since correct remedy was filing a revision application with Central government - Appeal disposed of: HCCus - CHA - AA has clearly brought out the modus adopted by the appellant and how he was a party to the entire under valuation exercise - Factual finding affirmed by Tribunal - No question of law arises for consideration: HCGST - Proper officer has not applied his mind while passing the order; confirmed demand by opining that reply is not satisfactory - Proper Officer is directed to withdraw all punitive actions taken against petitioner pursuant to impugned order: HCGST - Proper Officer had to at least consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion - Non-application of mind - Order set aside and matter remitted for re-adjudication: HCGST - Cancellation of registration for non-filing of returns - Suspension/revocation of license would be counterproductive and works against the interest of revenue - Pragmatic view needs to be taken to permit petitioner to carry on his business: HC86 flights of AI Express cancelled as crew goes on mass sick leaveTax Refund Conundrum - Odyssey of Legal MisstepsI-T- AO not barred from issuing more than one SCN; Fresh SCN seeking information is not without jurisdiction, more so where HC itself directed re-doing of assessment: HCMurthy launches Capacity Building on Design and Entrepreneurship programCash, liquor & drugs worth Rs 110 Cr seized from Jharkhand ahead of pollsI-T- Appeal before CIT(A) (NFAC) is rightly dismissed where it has been delayed by over one year without just & reasonable cause: ITATPoll-induced stress: 2 Bihar officials die of heart attack at polling boothsSixth Edition of Commandants' Conclave held in PuneSome Gujarat villages keep away from polls over unfulfilled demands from governmentRoof-hugging inflation nudges Argentina to print first lot of 10,000 notes of pesoInvestigation finds presence of ‘boys club’ strands of culture at American bank regulatorUS cancels licence to some firms found exporting materials to Huawei
 
I-T - Gross delay in seeking extraordinary writ remedy need not be entertained, unless backed by adequate reasons and absence of negligence on part of litigant: HC

 

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, AUG 21, 2018: THE ISSUE IS - Whether mere fact that Revenue officers were busy with time barring assessments, absolve them from taking proper action to challenge the orders of SETCOM, which according to them was without jurisdiction. NO IS THE VERDICT.

Facts of the case:

The Revenue Department had preferred present petition challenging the order passed by Settlement Commission u/s 245D(4) after a delay of almost one and half years. Although, the Revenue's counsel submits that this delay was essentially in view of the fact that the persons responsible to challenge the order were transferred and/or were engaged in time barring assessments.

High Court held that,

++ a challenge to an order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to be entertained, is not a matter of right in the party but a discretion to be exercised by the Court and one of the grounds to not exercise discretion is where a party has grossly delayed in moving the Court for this extra-ordinary remedy. However, where there are adequate reasons for the delay and the Court is satisfied that there is no negligence or omission on the part of the party, the Court may entertain a writ petition. The explanation for the laches/delay by the Revenue in moving the Court does not inspire any confidence. The fact that the officers were busy with time barring assessments does not absolve them from taking proper action to challenge the orders of the Commission, which according to them, is without jurisdiction and/or contrary to the Statute. This not taking action is evidence of negligence or caring less about this issue;

++ the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction is to be exercised only in case of parties whose conduct would evidence that the party was serious about the challenge and acted expeditiously to set right an injustice perceived by him. The extra-ordinary jurisdiction cannot be exercised in case of a party who takes his own time to approach the Court and sets out reasons only to explain the delay without any particulars to support the same.

(See 2018-TIOL-1664-HC-MUM-IT)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri N K Singh, recipient of TIOL FISCAL HERITAGE AWARD 2023, delivering his acceptance speech at Fiscal Awards event held on April 6, 2024 at Taj Mahal Hotel, New Delhi.


Shri Ram Nath Kovind, Hon'ble 14th President of India, addressing the gathering at TIOL Special Awards event.