INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. DEVUBEN @ JAMNABEN JIVRAJBHAI MOVALIAYA

PDF · subscribers
CA/243/2019HC GujaratGJHC24010157201901 July 2022Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Gujarat condoned the delay of 164 days in filing the Restoration Application. The Court found that the applicant's explanation for the delay, attributing it to an oversight and the delayed notice of the dismissal order, constituted a sufficient cause. The Court reasoned that the delay was not due to any deliberate omission by the Department. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the Rule issued in the Civil Application was made absolute. The operative direction was to proceed with the Restoration Application, implying that the merits of the Review Application would now be considered.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Department (applicant) is seeking condonation of a delay of 164 days in filing a Restoration Application. This application was necessitated after their Review Application, filed against an order dated 12.12.2017 by the High Court of Gujarat, was dismissed for want of prosecution on 17.07.2018. The High Court's earlier order in Special Civil Application No. 14244 of 2017 had directed the Income Tax authorities to refund Rs. 68,672/- to each of the petitioners (assessees). The Department contends that the order dismissing their Review Application only came to their notice when it was served by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Junagadh. They claim the delay was due to oversight and not deliberate omission.

What were the issues?

1. Whether sufficient cause has been made out for condoning the delay of 164 days in filing the Restoration Application, as required under the relevant procedural rules of the High Court. The applicant (Income Tax Department) argued that the delay in filing the Restoration Application was due to an oversight and that the order dismissing their Review Application for want of prosecution was not immediately brought to their notice. They contended that there was no deliberate omission on their part and that a sufficient cause existed for the delay. The respondent (assessee) did not record any specific arguments against the condonation of delay in the provided text.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
C/CA/243/2019 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 243 of 2019 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11723 of 2017 ========================================================== INCOME TAX OFFICER Versus DEVUBEN @ JAMNABEN JIVRAJBHAI MOVALIAYA ========================================================== Appearance: M R BHATT & CO.(5953) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4 MR TUSHAR L SHETH(3920) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 10,9 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA Date : 01/07/2022

ORAL ORDER This Court allowed Special Civil Application No. 14244 of 2017 filed by the petitioner - assesse by order dated 12.12.2017, whereby the respondent – Income Tax authorities were directed to refund the wrongly deducted amount of Rs. 68,672/- to each of the petitioners. The Income Tax authorities were directed to deposit the said amount before the Reference Court and to disburse the amount.

2.

Against the said judgment and order, the Income Tax department preferred a Review Application. The Review Application was dismissed for want of prosecution as per order dated 17.07.2018. The applicant - appellant filed Restoration Application. In filing the Restoration Application, delay of 164 days has taken place. Therefore the present application.

3.

Heard learned advocate Mr. Karan Singhania for M. R. C/CA/243/2019 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2022 Bhatt & Co. for the applicant and learned advocate Mr. Tushar Sheth for the respondent No. 1 to 8. 4. It appears that, by virtue of order dated 17.07.2018, the Miscellaneous Civil Application was dismissed for want of prosecution. Thereafter, delay in filing Restoration Application was sought to be explained by the applicant – Department stating that the aforesaid order dated 17.07.2018 came to the notice only when it was served upon the applicant No. 1 by the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Junagadh. It was submitted that thereafter the Restoration Application was filed in which they were heard. It was submitted that the delay was due to oversight and there was no deliberate omission.

5.

In the totality of facts delay to the extent of 164 days is said to be properly explained. Sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay of 164 days in preferring Restoration Application. Delay is condoned. Rule is made absolute. (N.V.ANJARIA, J) SHRIJIT PILLAI

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →