Mckinsey and Co. Inc. v. the Commissioner of Cgst and Cx Mumbai South Mumbai

Bombay HC18 Dec 2024IA/1509/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim application in a central excise appeal seeking condonation of delay. The court questioned the signatory's authority under the power of attorney and found the delay explanation unsatisfactory, permitting a further affidavit with full day-by-day delay explanation and proper authority.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to file further affidavit explaining each day's delay along with proper authority, by 15 September 2024; application listed for 25 September 2024.

Mckinsey and Co. Inc. vs the Commissioner of Cgst and Cx… — Customs and Excise | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

1/2 5.ia-1509.24.doc

¶2

ppn

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

Digitally signed PRACHI by PRACHIPRANESH PRANESHNANDIWADEKAR NANDIWADEKAR INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1509 OF 2024 Date: 2024.09.04 11:48:10 +0530 IN

¶5

¶6

CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL (L) NO.28761 OF 2023

¶7

McKinsey & Co. Inc ….Applicant/Appellant

¶8

V/s.

¶9

The Commissioner of CGST and

¶10

CX, Mumbai South ...Respondent

¶11

¶12

Mr. Prakash Shah a/w Mr. Jas Sanghavi and Mr. Mohit Raval for applicant/ appellant.

¶13

Mr. Jitendra Mishra a/w Ms. Mamta Omle for respondent.

¶14

---CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM &

¶15

JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. DATE : 2^nd SEPTEMBER 2024

¶16

P.C. :

¶17

1 We are not satisfied with the authority of Sayali Goel to file the

¶18

appeal as well as the interim application inasmuch as the said Sayali Goel is relying on a power of attorney (POA) issued by appellant which is signed by one Mr. Rajat Kumar Dhawan. The Authority of Mr. Rajat Kumar Dhawan to issue the POA is not provided. Moreover, there is nothing to indicate that Rajat Kumar Dhawan presented himself before the Notary Public at Gurugram and signed the power of attorney because there is no name and signature of witnesses mentioned in the power of attorney.

¶19

ppn

¶20

2/2 5.ia-1509.24.doc

¶21

2 Moreover, we are not satisfied with the explanation for the delay given in the interim application. It does appear the applicant has taken the matter very lightly. The request of Mr. Shah to file a further affidavit in support is granted.

¶22

3 In the further affidavit, appellant shall explain the time lag between 27^th January 2023 and 15^th March 2023, between 15^th March 2023 and 7^th April 2024, between 7^th April 2023 and 15^th April 2023, between 15^th April 2023 and 1^st May 2023, between 1^st May 2023 and 8^th May 2023, between 8^th May 2023 and 12^th June 2023, between 12^th June 2023 and 15^th July 2023, between 15^th July 2023 and 30^th July 2023 and between 1^st August 2023 and 28^th September 2023. Every day’s delay has to be explained.

¶23

4 Affidavit shall be filed along with the proper authority as mentioned above and copy served on or before 15^th September 2024.

¶24

5 Application be listed on 25^th September 2024.

¶25

(JITENDRA JAIN, J.)

¶26

(K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)

Mckinsey and Co. Inc. v. the Commissioner of Cgst and Cx Mumbai South Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mckinsey and Co. Inc. v. the Commissioner of Cgst and Cx Mumbai South Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sunshine Caterers Pvt. Ltd. vs Arun Kumar Agarwal (Deceased)

The Commissioner of Cgst and Central Excise Belapur Commissionerate vs Tenormac Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

Commissioner of Customs Ns I vs Din Dayal and Sons

Mahesh K Salot (Huf) vs Assessment Unit National Faceless Assessment Centrre

Vedant Builders and Ors. vs M/S. Paradise Infra-Com Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Vallabhji Malsi and Co. vs the National Faceless Assessment Centre