2015 (6) TMI 1071 - HC - Service Tax

Recovery proceedings - appellant contended that initial order passed by the adjudicating authority was so patent and loudly obtrusive, it was liable to be interfered with by the Commissioner (Appeals) and even if the Commissioner (Appeals) did not have any statutory power to condone the delay, the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ought to interfere. Held that - All relevant facts have been taken into consideration and by no stretch of imagination it can be held that the said order is so patent and loudly obtrusive, which will warrant an interference by the writ Court. That apart and in any event, there is no infirmity of reasoning in respect of the subsequent order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Appeal I, Kolkata dated 7th October, 2013 and finally, the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Regional Bench, Kolkata dated 4th December, 2014, affirming the order of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Appeal-I, Kolkata, while referring to and relying upon section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Singh Enterprises (2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA). Petition dismissed - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to orders passed by authorities under the Finance Act, 1994 and the Service Tax Rules, 1995.
2. Condonation of delay in filing appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise.
3. Jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:
1. The writ petitioner challenged orders passed by authorities under the Finance Act, 1994 and the Service Tax Rules, 1995. The initial order-in-original confirmed a demand for service tax, CESS, and penalties. The petitioner's appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeal) was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal as time-barred, a decision upheld by the Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner then approached the High Court, seeking interference with the initial order. The High Court analyzed the orders passed by various authorities and found them to be legally sound, supported by cogent reasons and in compliance with statutory provisions. The High Court concluded that there was no justification for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. The delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise was sought to be condoned by the petitioner based on the absence of the concerned person responsible for service tax matters due to ill health. However, the Commissioner, having no power to condone delays beyond one month, dismissed the appeal as time-barred. The Appellate Tribunal also upheld this decision, citing the statutory limit under section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. The High Court observed that the grounds for condonation of delay were insufficient to warrant interference with the decisions of the lower authorities.

3. The petitioner argued that the initial order passed by the Additional Commissioner was so flawed that the High Court should intervene under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner relied on a Supreme Court judgment to support this contention. However, the High Court, after thorough examination, found no patent flaws in the initial order or subsequent decisions by the Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal. The High Court held that there was no infirmity in the reasoning of the lower authorities and dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that there was no basis for interference under Article 226.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the orders passed by authorities under the Finance Act, 1994 and the Service Tax Rules, 1995, as it found no legal grounds to interfere with the decisions of the lower authorities.