2016 (6) TMI 1231 - HC - Service Tax

Recovery - The appellant has failed to avail of the appellate remedy after the order was passed on 27.02.2008 and it is only when the recovery process was initiated in 2011, to which the appellant has objected as adverse orders were being passed that the appellant has thought of assailing the original order - Held that - There is no conceivable reason disclosed by the appellant why he kept quite for three years and only when recovery process is being taken up, he woke up to assail the original order - notice for recovery was sent on 22.11.2011 and even thereafter, the appellant waited till March, 2012 to challenge the original order. The learned Single Judge cannot be said to have fallen into an error while rejecting the petition on the ground of delay and laches of four years - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Delay and laches in availing appellate remedy, rejection of petition on grounds of delay and laches.

Analysis:
1. The appellant was non-suited by the learned Single Judge due to delay and laches in availing the appellate remedy. The appellant failed to challenge the original order passed in 2008 until the recovery process began in 2011, raising objections to adverse orders being passed. The Single Judge did not delve into the merits of the case but focused on the delay issue. The High Court clarified that it could not assess the merits of the controversy but only determine if the Single Judge was correct in rejecting the appellant's request to hear the matter on merits or if an error was committed.

2. It is undisputed that the appellant received the original order promptly. However, the appellant remained silent for three years and only decided to challenge the order when the recovery process commenced. The High Court noted the lack of any valid reason provided by the appellant for the prolonged delay in taking action.

3. Additionally, the High Court highlighted that a notice for recovery was issued in November 2011, yet the appellant waited until March 2012 to contest the original order. This further emphasized the delay and laches on the part of the appellant in pursuing legal recourse promptly.

4. The High Court concluded that the learned Single Judge did not err in dismissing the petition based on the delay and laches of four years. The judgment upheld the decision to reject the appellant's plea, emphasizing the importance of timely action in legal proceedings to prevent undue delays and disruptions in the judicial process.

5. Ultimately, the writ appeal was dismissed with no costs imposed, and the related miscellaneous petition was closed. The judgment reinforced the principle that delays in pursuing legal remedies can have adverse consequences, leading to the dismissal of appeals based on procedural grounds such as delay and laches.