Cesc LTD. vs. Commissionher Orf Customs (Preventive)
Held
The Court found no merit in the appellant's request for further indulgence. Consequently, the appeal and the interlocutory application were dismissed.
Facts
The appellant failed to pay a deficit court fee of Rs. 188 for over four years. The explanation for a 91-day delay in filing the appeal was also unsatisfactory.
Key Issues
Whether the appellant's delay in paying court fees and filing the appeal warrants condonation.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER 20.12.2022
I. A. No.27 of 2018 and OTAPL No.17 of 2018 03. The Appellant had been unable to pay the deficit Court fees of Rs.188/- for over four years. Even, the explanation offered for condonation of delay of 91 days in filing the OTAPL is not satisfactory. The Court does not propose to grant any further indulgence. Accordingly, the OTAPL and IA are dismissed.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice
(M. S. Raman) Judge
M. Panda
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Orissa High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.