Abhishek Raja "Ram"

@abhishekrajaram

7 days ago

ā€¢View on Twitter

š—”š—²š˜„ š——š—²š—¹š—µš—¶ š—›š—¶š—“š—µ š—–š—¼š˜‚š—暝˜ š—„š˜‚š—¹š—¶š—»š—“ š—¼š—» š—–š—¼š—»š—±š—¼š—»š—®š˜š—¶š—¼š—» š—¼š—³ š——š—²š—¹š—®š˜† š—¶š—» š—”š—½š—½š—²š—®š—¹ š—™š—¶š—¹š—¶š—»š—“ šŸ“¢ š—§š—µš—² š—–š—¼š˜‚š—暝˜ š—µš—²š—¹š—±: "Each day of delay in filing an appeal must be explained. In this case, no sufficient reason was provided for an inordinate delay of almost 10 months."

šŸ” š—™š—®š—°š˜š˜€: š—£š—®š—暝˜š—¶š—²š˜€: Principal Commissioner Central Tax, Delhi South vs. Brahmaputra Infrastructure Ltd. š—œš˜€š˜€š˜‚š—²: Whether the application for condonation of delay in filing and re-filing the appeal is justified? š—”š—°š˜š—¶š˜ƒš—¶š˜š˜†: The appellant filed the appeal 10 months after the impugned order, citing misplacement of papers and inadvertence. The appeal was also refiled with significant delays and defects, including missing court fees and failure to file a hard copy.

āš–ļø š—š˜‚š—±š—“š—²š—ŗš—²š—»š˜: The Court ruled that the appellant failed to explain delays during multiple time gaps, with over two years of inaction before re-filing. Even excluding COVID-19 disruptions, significant delays remained unexplained. Consequently, the applications for condonation of delay were dismissed, and the appeal was rejected.

šŸ“œ š—–š—®š˜€š—² š—œš—»š—³š—¼š—暝—ŗš—®š˜š—¶š—¼š—»: š—§š—¶š˜š—¹š—²: Principal Commissioner Central Tax, Delhi South vs. Brahmaputra Infrastructure Ltd. š—¢š—暝—±š—²š—æ š——š—®š˜š—²: 28 March 2023 šŸ“œ This ruling underscores that unexplained and prolonged delays in appeal filing cannot be condoned without a valid explanation for each day of delay.

More from @abhishekrajaramReply on Twitter

Page created with TweetHunter

Write your own