9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Appeal delay, Compliance with rules, Condonation of delay.
Analysis: The petitioner, one of the sons of a deceased individual, filed an appeal regarding the valuation of the deceased's estate for duty purposes. The Assistant Controller valued the share of the deceased, leading to an appeal to the Appellate Controller, who partially allowed the appeal. The petitioner then filed an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, which was challenged by the department for being delayed by 20 days. The petitioner argued that he had applied for a challan form and sent a demand draft within the time limit, thus filing the appeal on time. However, the Tribunal found that the petitioner had not made a sufficient case for condoning the delay, as he failed to comply with the rules regarding the submission of fees. The petitioner contended that there was no rule prohibiting the submission of fees by demand draft and that the note in the form was directory, not mandatory. The court disagreed, stating that the form and its note were part of the rules, and the Tribunal was bound to follow them. The court also noted that the petitioner did not act diligently, as he sent the demand draft by registered post after the limitation period had expired. The petitioner's reliance on correspondence with the Tribunal instead of ensuring timely submission was deemed imprudent, leading to a lack of sufficient compliance with the rules. The court concluded that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a valid reason for condoning the delay. The petitioner's actions were seen as unreasonable and imprudent, with no justification for the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision to reject the condonation of delay and dismiss the appeal as time-barred. The petition was subsequently dismissed, with no costs awarded due to the absence of the opposing party.
|
