PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BAYER VAPI PRIVATE LIMITED

PDF · subscribers
CA/775/2019HC GujaratGJHC24022449201908 April 2019Bench: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court condoned the delay of 108 days in filing Tax Appeal No. 11068 of 2019. The Court found that the delay was occasioned solely due to technical reasons and inadvertence, stemming from the applicant's attempt to file a consolidated appeal instead of two separate appeals, whereas the original appeals had been filed within the prescribed period of limitation. The Court reasoned that since the initial filing was within time, the subsequent delay caused by procedural oversight should be excused. The application for condonation of delay was allowed, and the Tax Appeal was permitted to be filed. The Court did not decide on the merits of the Tax Appeal itself, as the application was solely for condonation of delay.

What were the facts?

The applicant, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, filed a Civil Application seeking condonation of delay in filing Tax Appeal No. 11068 of 2019. The appeal was filed against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The applicant stated that the original appeals were filed within the prescribed period of limitation. However, due to an inadvertent error, a consolidated appeal was filed instead of two separate appeals. This led to a delay in filing the present separate appeals. The delay amounted to 108 days.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 108 days in filing Tax Appeal No. 11068 of 2019 should be condoned, considering the reasons provided by the applicant? (Question of fact and law) The applicant argued that the delay was purely on account of technical reasons and inadvertence, specifically the filing of a consolidated appeal instead of two separate appeals, when the original appeals were filed within the limitation period. The applicant contended that the delay should be condoned to allow the appeal to be heard on its merits. The respondent, M/s Bayer Vapi Private Limited, did not record any arguments in the judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/CA/775/2019 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 775 of 2019 In F/TAX APPEAL NO. 11068 of 2019 ================================================================ PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus M/S BAYER VAPI PRIVATE LIMITED ================================================================ Appearance: MRS KALPANAK RAVAL(1046) for the Applicant for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA

Date : 08/04/2019

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) 1. Heard Mr. Nikunt Raval, learned advocate for Ms. Kalpana Raval, learned advocate for the applicant. 2. On a perusal of the averments made in the application, it is evident that the applicant had filed the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. However, due to inadvertence, instead of filing two separate appeals, a consolidated appeal had been filed in respect of two appeals filed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Under the circumstances, the applicant has filed separate appeals and in the process, there is a delay in filing the appeal. 3. Having regard to the fact that it is only on account of Page 1 of 2

C/CA/775/2019 ORDER technical reasons, that there is a delay occasioned in filing the appeal, the court finds that since previously the appeal was filed within the prescribed period of limitation, the delay caused in preferring the appeal is required to be condoned. 4. In view of the above, the application is allowed. The delay of 108 days caused in filing Tax Appeal No.11068 of 2019 is hereby condoned. The application stands disposed of accordingly. (HARSHA DEVANI, J) (BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) B.U. PARMAR Page 2 of 2

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →