9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (6) TMI 30 - HC - Service TaxWorks contract - Condonation of delay - CESTAT observed that the Doctor in question is a skin specialist and therefore, the medical certificate issued by him for the person suffering from Hepatitis, is mis-conceived and therefore, there is no explanation for condonation of delay and accordingly, the application was dismissed by the CESTAT. Held that - The Doctor attached to the petitioner-company gave medical advise to the General Manager and he gives treatment to the employees of the petitioner-company, and he has given a Medical Certificate for taking rest to the General Manager for the ailment of Hepatatis. The CESTAT not being an expert in examining that Certificate, took a view that the said certificate cannot be accepted and therefore, the reasoning given by the CESTAT in dismissing the condonation of delay application is not justifiable. Delay condoned - CESTAT is at liberty to take further course in the appeal filed by the petitioner-assessee. - Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues:
Challenge to delay application order passed by 4th respondent in Appeal No.ST/230/2011. Analysis: The petitioner, a company engaged in manufacturing lift components, received a show cause notice regarding the taxability of works contracts executed between October 2007 and May 2008 under Section 65 (105)(zzzza) of the Finance Act. The Department contended that the petitioner undervalued the service portion of the contracts, leading to a demand of &8377;6,90,60,500. The petitioner, having paid service tax as per the TNVAT Act, filed an appeal with CESTAT (R4) in Appeal No.ST/230/2011, along with a delay condonation application. The CESTAT dismissed the appeal due to delay, questioning the validity of the medical certificate provided by the petitioner's doctor, a skin specialist, for the General Manager's illness. The High Court found the CESTAT's reasoning unjustifiable, as the doctor's role within the company was to provide medical advice to employees, and hence, the delay was condoned. The High Court noted that the petitioner had a valid reason for the delay in filing the appeal, which was the ill-health of the General Manager and Company Secretary during December 2010 and January 2011. The medical certificate provided by the company's doctor, who regularly attended to the medical needs of the company's workforce, was questioned by the CESTAT on the basis that he was a skin specialist. The High Court found this reasoning flawed and set aside the CESTAT's decision, condoning the delay and allowing the appeal to proceed. The Court emphasized the importance of considering genuine reasons for delay and avoiding unnecessary litigation, ultimately ruling in favor of the petitioner. In conclusion, the High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order and condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The Court directed the 4th respondent-CESTAT to proceed with the appeal filed by the petitioner. The judgment highlighted the need to consider valid reasons for delay and prevent prolonged litigation, ultimately ensuring a fair and just outcome for the petitioner.
|
