- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Delhi High Court Imposes Cost On Tax Authorities For Non-Appearance
Delhi High Court Imposes Cost On Tax Authorities For Non-Appearance The non-appearance and non-filing of the counter affidavit led the Court to impose a cost on the tax authorities The Delhi High Court imposed a cost of ₹20,000 on the Tax Authorities as they did not appear before the Court in order to file a counter-affidavit. A Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi, comprising...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Delhi High Court Imposes Cost On Tax Authorities For Non-Appearance
The non-appearance and non-filing of the counter affidavit led the Court to impose a cost on the tax authorities
The Delhi High Court imposed a cost of ₹20,000 on the Tax Authorities as they did not appear before the Court in order to file a counter-affidavit.
A Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi, comprising of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Talwant Singh, dealt with this matter titled M/s Anand And Anand v Union Of India And Ors.
The Court did not go into the facts of the case and purely remarked on the Respondent – Tax Authorities for not appearing before the Court. The Court further noted that the Respondent had not filed the counter-affidavit either.
The bench took the non-appearance and non-filing of the counter affidavit into consideration and imposed a cost on the Respondent – Authorities.
It directed the Respondent – Authorities to deposit a cost of ₹20,000 with the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA), which will be used for the welfare measures that have been put in place, for advocates, enrolled with it.
The Court thus listed the matter on 25 August 2021 which provided the Respondent – Authorities a period of five weeks to file the counter affidavit on payment of the cost.