2012 (6) TMI 271 - HC - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - appeal in this case is filed after a lapse of one year - extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction Held that - amount of service tax and penalty demanded is not very large. Further, in any case it is a question of payment of tax from one Central Government Department to another Central Government Department. not inclined to exercise extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction and, therefore, the petition is dismissed. petition is disposed of

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to dismissal of appeal on the ground of delay in filing within the statutory limitation period.

Analysis:
The High Court judgment involved a challenge to the dismissal of an appeal by the Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Surat against the order dated 31-3-2009 passed by the Assistant Commissioner Service Tax. The appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of delay in filing, as it was filed after a year, exceeding the statutory limitation of three months for condonation of delay. The Commissioner (Appeals) cited the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, which clearly limited the power to condone delay to a maximum of three months.

The Court acknowledged the statutory provisions regarding the filing of appeals and limitations under the Finance Act, 1994. It noted that the power of the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone delay was indeed restricted to a maximum of three months. Therefore, the Court found no illegality in the order under challenge based on the clear statutory limitations and the facts presented in the case.

The petitioner's counsel referred to a previous judgment to argue that the High Court could intervene in cases where the statutory limit for condonation of delay was exceeded. However, the Court declined to adopt this approach in the current case due to the specific circumstances. The Court emphasized that the amount of service tax and penalty involved was not substantial, and it involved a transfer of funds between Central Government Departments. Given these factors, the Court decided not to exercise its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to entertain the challenge beyond the prescribed limitation period.

The Court dismissed the petition, highlighting that the petitioner could still pursue resolution through departmental channels. The judgment concluded with the disposal of the petition and permitted direct service, maintaining the possibility for the petitioner to continue seeking resolution within the departmental framework.