9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 1212 - HC - GSTCondonation of delay in filing the review petition - delay in re-filing - grounds for review of the order - HELD THAT - Two reasons have been provided for the delay in re-filing. The first that the counsel was indisposed and the second is that the Petitioner is a Government Department and a number of procedural formalities are involved in drafting finalization and signatures of Petitions including the present case. One of the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay in re-filing the review petition is the verbatim copy of the ground as stated in the application seeking condonation of delay in filing - It cannot be countenanced seeking condonation of delay in such casual manner apart from finding the said reason inadequate for explaining protracted delays. However the ill health of the counsel is a persuasive ground to condone the delay in refiling. Thus the application is allowed and the delay in re-filing stands condoned. In the present case as well it is not the case of the respondents that cash seized was stock in trade. The tax payee is in the business of optical lenses and it is not the review petitioner s case that the cash seized was stock in trade. There are no ground to review the order dated 22.08.2023 - application for condonation of delay in re-filing is allowed.
Issues involved: Condonation of delay in filing review petition, condonation of delay in re-filing, grounds for review of the order.
Condonation of delay in filing review petition: The delay of 97 days in filing the review petition was attributed to procedural formalities involved in drafting and finalization. However, the court found this explanation insufficient. Additionally, a further delay of 38 days in re-filing was noted. The reasons provided for the delay in re-filing included the counsel's indisposition and the same procedural formalities. The court allowed the delay in re-filing to be condoned due to the counsel's ill health, but emphasized that seeking condonation of delay in a casual manner is not acceptable. Grounds for review of the order: The review petition was not entertained due to the delay, but the court examined the grounds for review of the order dated 22.08.2023. The petitioner sought to distinguish the case based on a judgment from the High Court of Kerala, but the court held that the earlier decision of the Delhi High Court was applicable in this case. The court referenced the Kerala High Court's decision in another case and noted that the seizure of cash in the present case was not related to the business's stock in trade. Separate Judgment: The High Court of Kerala's decision in Shabu George & Anr v. State Tax Officer & Ors. was discussed, highlighting the court's view on the seizure of cash in a tax evasion investigation. The court found that the seizure of cash in the present case was unwarranted, similar to the Kerala High Court's observations in a different matter. The court also referenced decisions from the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and reiterated that there were no grounds to review the order dated 22.08.2023. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed, while the application for condonation of delay in re-filing was allowed.
|
