In The Cit-9 v. M/S. Ring Plus Aqua Ltd, the High Court (2008) decided the matter.
Decision: In view thereof we are constrained to dismiss the above appeal.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.956 OF 2008
The CIT-9
: Appellant
v/s
M/s. Ring Plus Aqua Ltd.
: Respondent
Mr. J.S. Saluja for AppellantNone for respondent
Coram : Dr. S. Radhakrishnan
S.J. Kathawalla, JJ.Date : 24.9.2008
P.C.
.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
.
In the above the learned counsel for the
appellant has sought time to serve the respondent on27.8.2008. We therefore granted time till 10.9.2008.Again the matter appeared on 10.9.2008. Again Mr.Saluja sought time to serve the respondent.Accordingly as a last chance we granted time tilltoday. Today Mr. Saluja very candidly states thatthe appellant revenue has still not served therespondent. In fact no steps are taken to serve the
respondent. In view thereof we are constrained to
dismiss the above appeal.
(S.J. Kathawalla,J.)
(Dr. S.Radhakrishnan,J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.
EaseValue