Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Ltd vs. CIT (Bombay High Court)

DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 7, 2014 (Date of publication)

Click here to download the judgement (thermax_adjournments_HC.pdf)

High Court lays down zero-tolerance policy over adjournments. Threatens to dismiss appeals, hear them ex-parte or and/or impose costs if counsel are not prepared

(i) We have noted that the Final Hearing Board consists of all Appeals of 2002. First two matters have been adjourned by us only because the Department or the Advocate for Appellant sought accommodation. They did not have either papers or were not ready with the case. Such state of affairs will not be tolerated hereafter. In the event, the Counsel engaged by the Department is absent without a justifiable or reasonable cause, we will invariably impose costs and to be paid by the Counsel personally. Equally, we would proceed in his absence. In the event, the Appellant or his Advocate is absent, we will proceed to dismiss the Appeal for non prosecution. Thereafter, no application for restoration of the Appeal will be considered unless the Appellant makes out a sufficient cause for absence;

(ii) We would also expect the Department and equally the Excise, Customs, Income Tax, all of which are stated to have engaged separate Advocates, to inform and caution their Advocates that their absence would result in either this Court proceeding ex-parte or the Appeals of the Department being dismissed for non prosecution. This Court will not hereafter countenance that the matters are adjourned and not heard due to absence of the Advocates. The Department is equally responsible to the Court and must ensure the presence of their Advocates. In the event only one Advocate is being briefed, the Department may consider handing over and entrusting the papers to an additional Advocate so as not to cause inconvenience to this Court. The disobedience of this order or inconvenience to this Court, would result in the Joint Secretary, Department of Law & Judiciary, Government of India, so also, the Secretary, Department of Law & Judiciary, Government of India, remaining present in the Court.

2 comments on “Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Ltd vs. CIT (Bombay High Court)
  1. very bad of revenue . i understand several times the panel advocates are not paid by dept the agreed fees, so many panel advocates do not appear for departments as they appear else where , where they can earn their day to day living fees;

    also i understand these departments ask these panel advocates to pay cuts to departments concerned of the relevant revenue. that need to be investigated to rectify the situation.

    actually i would like the honorable court to fine the department so that department will stop taking cuts from advocates; i understand cuts are very drastic when i was told by many panel persons., these days. dept is not happy to pay the determined fees to panel advocates; recently i saw sometime back some conflict with commissioner of income tax with advocates, if i am not mistaken!

    deterrence on the dept is very much must!

    problems is greed for money is day by day increasing in department;

    i was told by an assessee that to legally help him some appellate commissioner in collusion with CA who was appearing in a case before that person told assessee to pay 5 lacs else you will be charged more than 10 lacs + u/s 271(1)(c)..

    very sad…

    i think CVC need to examine what is happening in these revenue departments that may help improve the situation i believe!

  2. vswami says:

    Reaction (from a commoner’s angle)

    WRT the narration in (ii) above < The strictures seemingly passed from the bottom of the heart, if so can be fittingly called, passed by the court, to anyone true to his conscience, are sure to have made a deeper dent in the already prevailing common opinion against the growing indifference to courts / ‘judicial proceedings’. Though late, it is not but high time for the trend not to be allowed to further deteriorate but be effectively and forcefully checked; in an earnest attempt to bring about at least some notable, marked improvement in the larger public ierest. Failing which, the day when the whole ‘legal system’ – in its comprehensive/all embracing sense- is bound to collapse may not be far off. NO need to add, that would result , only in further deterioration of what has come to be lately diagnosed / identified as a ‘functioning anarchy’, in every branch/nerve centre of the system, in totality.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *