COURT: | Bombay High Court |
CORAM: | S. C. Dharmadhikari J, Vibha Kankanwadi J |
SECTION(S): | 260A |
GENRE: | Domestic Tax |
CATCH WORDS: | strictures |
COUNSEL: | Hiten Chande, J.D. Mistri |
DATE: | August 28, 2017 (Date of pronouncement) |
DATE: | September 12, 2017 (Date of publication) |
AY: | - |
FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
CITATION: | |
Severe strictures passed against the department for filing a 'patently false' affidavit with regard to the failure to remove office objections. The cause shown is not sufficient and lacks in bona fides. It is a case of gross negligence and utter callousness on the part of the Revenue/Department. Tendency of the Revenue to either blame its' Advocate or the procedural rules for the dismissal of their Appeals deprecated |
We find that the explanation or reason given in paragraph 3 of this affidavit to be patently false. If paragraph 3 and paragraph 4 of this affidavit-in-support cannot be reconciled, then, it is obvious that though aware of the conditional orders after lodging of the subject Appeal, the Revenue’s Advocate and the Revenue officials did not take the requisite steps. They cannot now come out with such a version for seeking restoration of a dismissed Appeal. The cause shown is, therefore, not sufficient and lacks in bona fides. It is a case of gross negligence and utter callousness on the part of the Revenue/Department. In two similar Motions, we had deprecated the tendency of the Revenue to either blame it’s Advocate or the procedural rules for the dismissal of their Appeals
Recent Comments