DIRECTIOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS

PDF · subscribers
ITA/197/2016HC DelhiDLHC01094890201621 March 2016Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Court found the reasons for the delay unconvincing, particularly the excuse of change of Standing Counsel. The Court stated that the Department's High Court cell should have tracked the filing of appeals. The Court also noted that the change in filing procedures should not have resulted in such a significant delay.

What were the facts?

The Department of Income Tax filed an appeal with an inordinate delay of 980 days in re-filing. The reasons provided for the delay included a change of Standing Counsel and the Court's practice directions regarding soft copies of paperbooks.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay of 980 days in re-filing the appeal by the Department of Income Tax is sufficiently explained and should be condoned.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA 197/2016

Page 1 of 2

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 28 +

ITA 197/2016

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) ..... Appellant

Through: Mr. P. Roy Chaudhuri with Ms. Lakshmi Gurung, Advocates.

versus

BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARS

..... Respondent

CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R %

21.03.2016

CM APPL No. 10440/2016 (for 980 days in re-filing the appeal), & ITA No. 197/2016

1.

There is an inordinate delay of 980 days in re-filing the appeal.

2.

The Court finds that the standard excuse that the department is putting forth in all such applications for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal is two-fold. The first is regarding change of Standing counsel for the Department. This does not impress the Court. It is not possible to accept that no one followed up on the filing of appeals and allowed a period of more than two and a half years to elapse before the appeal could be re-filed. The Department has a cell in the High Court which is under the supervision of a Deputy CIT. He ought to be keeping track of the filing of appeals and should be able to know if any appeal entrusted to the panel counsel for filing has not been listed even once before the Court for a long time.

ITA 197/2016

Page 2 of 2

3.

The second is regarding the practice directions issued by the Court pertaining to filing of soft copies of the paperbooks in tax matters. Sufficient advance notice had been given to the litigants and Advocates about the filing of soft copies of the paperbooks. Further, the Registry of the Court had made appropriate arrangements for scanning services at the filing counters to facilitate the making of soft copies so that the inconvenience if any caused to the Advocates and the litigants is minimised. In any event the change could not have entailed a delay of more than two and a half years.

4.

The application bearing CM No. 10440/2016 for condonation of the delay of 980 days in re-filing the appeal is dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed

S. MURALIDHAR, J

VIBHU BAKHRU, J MARCH 21, 2016 Rk

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →