Dismissed

The Commissioner Commercial Taxes U.P.Lucknow v. M/S K.R. Enterprises 96/14 Purana Ganeshganj Lucknow

Allahabad HC15 Jul 2024STRED/75/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court rejected the application for condonation of a 2-year and 20-day delay in filing a tax revision. The explanation of file movement between offices was found insufficient as it lacked dates and indicated negligence by the State authorities. Consequently, the revision was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay rejected; Revision dismissed.

The Commissioner Commercial Taxes… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:47953

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 75 of 2013

¶4

Revisionist :- The Commissioner Commercial Taxes U.P.Lucknow Opposite Party :- M/S K.R. Enterprises 96/14 Purana Ganeshganj Lucknow Counsel for Revisionist :- C.S.C

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

(C.M. Application No.34559 of 2013)

¶7

Heard learned Standing Counsel for the revisionist and perused the record.

¶8

The present revision has been preferred by the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, U.P., Lucknow assailing the judgement and order dated 29.11.2010, whereby the Commercial Tax Tribunal has held that product, which is Anmol Oil, falls within the category of hair oil and not medicated hair oil and the said revision has been filed after a delay of 2 years and 20 days and is supported with an application for condonation of delay stating that copy of the impugned judgement and order dated 29.11.2010 was received in the office of the revisionist on 20.12.2010 and thereafter the matter was referred by the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, U.P. to the Government for seeking necessary directions and permission to assail the same, which was subsequently referred to the Law Department and on 29.08.2011, the Law Department issued its order for filing of revision and subsequently it was filed before this Court on 09.04.2013.

¶9

It is noticed that in the application for condonation of delay filed along with affidavit, the delay of 2 years and 20 days has been explained merely by stating that the file has been moved one office to another without even indicating date on which the file was moved to the various offices. The law with regard to condonation of delay is extremely clear and where the delay has been adequately explained and sufficient cause shown for such delay, the Court is liberal in condoning the same and hearing the case on merits.

¶10

In the present case, after perusal of the affidavit filed by the revisionist, it cannot be said that the sufficient cause in filing

¶11

the present revision has even been explained and it has merely been stated that the copy of the impugned judgement and order was received on 20.12.2010, which was referred to the Law Department on 29.08.2011 and no other details have been submitted. The delay of 2 years accordingly cannot be condoned in the present case as the aforesaid facts did not constitute sufficient cause and no reason has been given for delay in filing the present revision, even when the authorities are fully aware about the statutory provision of filing the revision within the prescribed time of 90 days, but the file was kept pending for more than one year at various offices, which clearly indicates callous and negligent attitude of the State authorities and as such the delay caused in filing the revision cannot be condoned.

¶12

No clarification as to any general issue have been sought from any authority or counsel, but merely the file travelling from one office to another and on each station, the same was kept pending for more than one year cannot be said to be a sufficient cause for condoning the delay.

¶13

In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court do not find any reason for condoning the delay of 2 years and 20 days. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is rejected .

¶14

The instant revision is accordingly dismissed .

¶15

(Alok Mathur,J.)

¶16

Order Date :- 15.7.2024 Anupam S/-

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM SINGH PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

The Commissioner Commercial Taxes U.P.Lucknow v. M/S K.R. Enterprises 96/14 Purana Ganeshganj Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner Commercial Taxes U.P.Lucknow v. M/S K.R. Enterprises 96/14 Purana Ganeshganj Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Trinetra Dey and Another Vs Addl. Civil Judge Senior Division Court NO.21 Lko

The Commissioner Commercial Tax Lucknow Vs M/S Lancer Food Products Gautambudh Nagar

Maahey Laka Vs Sri Jamal Ahmad Khan and Another

Parmeshwar Singh Vs D.D.C. Sultanpur and Others

Raghuvir Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 43 Others

Tauqeer Alam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and Others