to download the file. You will need a PDF reader to view the files. You can download one for free from
|
High Court has no power to condone delay in filing appeals
Where s. 35G of the Central Excise Act (= 260A of the I. T. Act) provided a time limit of 180 days for filing an appeal and there was no provision for condoning delay by showing sufficient cause after the prescribed period, there was complete exclusion of section 5 of the Limitation Act and the High Court had no power to condone the delay after expiry of the prescribed period. Even otherwise, the legislature had provided sufficient time for filing a reference to the High Court which was more than the period prescribed for an appeal and revision.
Note: The judgement of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in CCE vs. Shree Rubber Plast is impliedly overruled.
See Also: Shruti Colourants (Bom) and Velingkar Brothers 289 ITR 382 (Bom Full Bench).
Related Judgements
- CCE vs. Hongo India (Supreme Court)
In CCE vs. Punjab Fibres Ltd (223) E.L.T. 337 the Supreme Court held that the High Court has no power to condone delay in filing of a Reference Application u/s 35H(1) of the Excise Act on the ground that where the statute specifies a limitation period, s. 5 of…
- Sahara India vs. CIT (Supreme Court) (Larger Bench)
Before dubbing the accounts to be complex or difficult to understand, there has to be a genuine and honest attempt on the part of the AO to understand accounts maintained by the assessee; appreciate the entries made therein and in the event of any doubt, seek explanation from the…
- CIT vs. Gold Coin Health (Supreme Court – Larger Bench)
the amendment to Explanation 4 to s. 271(1)(c), though made with effect from 1st April 2003, should be treated as clarificatory and retrospective.
