2013 (9) TMI 835 - HC - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - In explaining the delay in filing the appeals before the learned Tribunal, the appellant stated that it had entrusted its Chartered Accountant Shri K.C.Mundra to do so, but due to some exigencies coupled with developed differences , the appeals were not filed by him in time and eventually, its Management had to take decision for taking away the files from him and for engaging another counsel locally at Delhi. - Held that - Not only, the statements made in the application before the learned Tribunal purportedly seeking to explain the delay are vague, those, as has been rightly observed by the learned Tribunal, do not disclose any cause whatsoever cognizable in law for condoning the same. The departure from these statements in the memorandum of appeal, in our comprehension, has an adverse impact on the veracity and authenticity of the explanation as well. Further, the purported explanation that due to some exigencies coupled with developed differences , the appeals were not filed by the Chartered Accountant in time is not only vague but it also is suggestive of the continual knowledge of the appellant of the intervening developments. The enormous delay of one year and four months thus logically has been as a consequence of its deliberate inaction, negligence and laches, though being aware of the period of limitation for preferring the appeals - Thus, without even analyzing the plea that its Chartered Accountant entrusted with the responsibility of preferring the appeals was or was not its agent, we are constrained to hold that the appellant did fail to offer any cause far less sufficient cause to condone the delay - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeals before the Tribunal for condonation.

Analysis:
The judgment involves appeals arising from a common order passed by the Tribunal, where the delay in filing the appeals was not condoned. The appellant, a Cooperative Bank, argued that it was beyond the purview of certain provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. The delay in filing the appeals was attributed to the Chartered Accountant's negligence, leading to the Tribunal rejecting the applications for condonation. The appellant contended that the Chartered Accountant was not its agent and sufficient cause was provided to explain the delay. However, the Tribunal held the appellant liable for the Chartered Accountant's conduct and declined to condone the delay, resulting in the dismissal of the appeals.

The appellant's argument centered on the Chartered Accountant's role and the reasons for the delay, claiming innocence and lack of fault on its part. Discrepancies were noted between the explanations provided in the application for condonation and the memorandum of appeal. The Court found the explanations vague and lacking legal grounds for condonation. The significant delay of one year and four months was deemed a result of deliberate inaction and negligence on the appellant's part, despite being aware of the limitation period for filing appeals. The Court emphasized the importance of offering sufficient cause to justify condonation, which the appellant failed to provide in this case.

The Court's decision was based on the lack of a valid explanation for the delay, irrespective of the Chartered Accountant's agency status. The Court concluded that the appellant did not present a sufficient cause to warrant condonation of the delay. The judgment upheld the Tribunal's order, dismissing the appeals on grounds of merit. The Court highlighted the appellant's awareness of the situation and the absence of a justifiable reason for the prolonged delay. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and the judgment was directed to be placed in all relevant files for reference.