M/s Wine Agencies Vs. The Financial Commissioner Revenue & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 11551-11552 of 1996
Petitioner: M/s Wine Agencies
Respondent: The Financial Commissioner Revenue & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 11551-11552 of 1996
Judges: Dr. A.S. ANAND, C.J.I, S. RAJENDRA BABU & R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 20, 2000
Head Note:
LIMITATION
Limitation Act, 1963
Section 5 with Constitution – Article 136 – Appeal against order of Excise and Taxation – Commissioner exer-cising powers of Financial Commissioner – Appeal filed after the expiry of period of limitation – Appellate Authority refusing to condone delay as not having been satisfactorily explained and dismissing appeal as time barred – High Court upholding order of Appellate Authority as the delay of more than a year had not been properly explained and declining to entertain writ. Held no error having been committed by High Court. No interference called for.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Aggrieved by an order passed by the Excise and Taxation Com-missioner exercising the powers of Financial Commissioner, the appellant herein filed an appeal though after expiry of the prescribed period of limitation. The Appellate Authority was not satisfied about the justification for delay and declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal as barred by time. The order of the Appellate Authority, rejecting the appeal, as barred by time, was put in issue through a writ petition in the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court opined that there was no explanation furnished by the appellant for the delay in filing the writ petition after expiry of more than a year after dismissal of the appeal. The High Court declined to enter-tain the writ petition on thaground. We have examined the record and do not find any error to have been committed by the High Court in that behalf. These appeals, therefore, fail and are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
1. Aggrieved by an order passed by the Excise and Taxation Com-missioner exercising the powers of Financial Commissioner, the appellant herein filed an appeal though after expiry of the prescribed period of limitation. The Appellate Authority was not satisfied about the justification for delay and declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal as barred by time. The order of the Appellate Authority, rejecting the appeal, as barred by time, was put in issue through a writ petition in the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court opined that there was no explanation furnished by the appellant for the delay in filing the writ petition after expiry of more than a year after dismissal of the appeal. The High Court declined to enter-tain the writ petition on thaground. We have examined the record and do not find any error to have been committed by the High Court in that behalf. These appeals, therefore, fail and are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
