DAULATRAM PARMANAND NARANG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS.

PDF · subscribers
WP/2233/2005HC BombayHCBM01011794200527 June 2005Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE J.H. BHATIA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of laches. The court found that the explanation provided by the petitioner for the delay in filing the petition was vague and lacked specific details. The court noted that the petitioner had not provided any concrete information regarding the dates of hospitalization or the duration of his illness. Consequently, the court concluded that the petition suffered from gross delay and that the petitioner had not made out a case for condoning the delay. The operative direction was the dismissal of the petition. No other issues were decided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shri Daulatram Paramanand Narang, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an order dated August 9, 2002. The petition was lodged on March 30, 2005, indicating a significant delay. The petitioner attributed this delay to ill health, specifically a heart condition requiring hospitalization on multiple occasions, preventing him from approaching the court earlier. The petitioner stated reliance on medical treatment papers, which were to be produced. The respondents, Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(2), Ahmednagar, and another, were represented by 'None' in the proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition suffers from gross delay and laches, warranting dismissal. The petitioner argued that the delay was unintentional and due to severe health issues, supported by medical records. The petitioner contended that they were approaching the court as early as possible under the circumstances. The revenue did not present any arguments as they were unrepresented. The court had to decide if the explanation for the delay was sufficient to condone it and proceed with the merits of the petition.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2233 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.2233 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.2233 OF 2005 Shri Daulatram Paramanand Narang ...Petitioner. V/s. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(2), Ahmednagar & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr.Narayan Sahu i/b S.K.Srivastav & Co. for the Petitioner. None for the Respondent. CORAM: S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM: S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM: S.RADHAKRISHNAN & J.H.BHATIA, JJ. J.H.BHATIA, JJ. J.H.BHATIA, JJ. DATE : 27th June, 2005. DATE : 27th June, 2005. DATE : 27th June, 2005. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner. By this Petition, the Petitioner has impugned the order dated 9th August, 2002. The present petition has been opposed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The present petition has been lodged on 30th March, 2005. 2. The only explanation with regard to the delay in filing the above petition is found in para 20 of the petition which reads as under: "(20) That the Petitioner was not keeping good health and was suffering from heart disease and was admitted in hospital on several

: 2 : occasions and hence could not approach this Hon’ble Court earlier. There is no deliberate delay in approaching this Hon’ble Court and the Petitioner is thus approaching this Hon’ble Court as early as possible. The Petitioner relies upon the medical treatment papers when produced." 3. On perusal of the above, it clearly indicates that the Petitioner has not given any details, whatsover. The entire submission is totally vague. Petition suffers from gross delay. Hence, the above Petition stands dismissed on the ground of laches. (S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (J.H.BHATIA, J.) (J.H.BHATIA, J.) (J.H.BHATIA, J.)

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →