9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s invoked and the conditional order was passed on 18th September, 2014 in several appeals. We have on record at pages 7 and 8 an order passed in about 82 appeals. That order reads as under:- "The Appellant and /or his Advocate to remove office objections on the Appeal and get the same numbered and regd. on or before 16/10/2014, failing the Appeal to stand rejected under O. S. Rule 986." 2. Such an order is sought to be set aside by the Revenue by filing the instant motion and there is a delay of 776 days in filing the motion. 3. An affidavit in support initially filed sets out only one cause and that is that the office objections were not removed. The office objections could not be removed because the panel of the advocates repres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... boldly states that there was no record in the case files regarding the nature of the office objections and therefore, no steps could be taken by his office to remove the office objections. Then, it is stated that Notice of Motion No. 209 of 2014 filed for condonation of delay of 133 days was made absolute by this court on 27th April, 2015. That is why the Pune Service Tax Commissionerate was under a bonafide belief that the case was still alive in the High Court. 5. Thereafter, what is set out is that because of appointment of fresh panel of advocates and by an order of 9th June, 2016, it is after the directions and advise of the new panel counsel that the present notice of motion has been filed on 3rd December, 2016. 6. Thereafter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clarified at all. 8. We caution the advocates appearing for the Revenue that they are first the officers of the court. They ought not to dance to the tune of the senior level officials and particularly the Service Tax Commissionerate in Pune. If any advice and opinion tendered is being misconstrued and used against them, then, it is for them to decide whether to continue and render their service to the Revenue. Secondly, this Commissioner ought to know that there cannot be any justification for not visiting the Registry and seeking inspection of the files, particularly in matters involving a huge tax liability but rely only on some communication from the advocate. No litigant can say and as of right that because I have handed over the pape ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
