2014 (9) TMI 469 - HC - Customs

Condonation of delay - delay in filing revision application - Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in Court without jurisdiction - Held that - The Revision Application has been preferred by the petitioner after the period of 2 years, 3 months and 12 days. If the period from 22-9-2009 to 6-8-2010 spent before the Tribunal and thereafter the period spent in pursuing the Tax Appeal, if is excluded, the revision application before the Central Government preferred would be within the period of three months as prescribed under the statute. The order passed by the Joint Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), dated 19-2-2013 deserves to be quashed and set aside. Respondent No. 2 is directed to restore and decide the Revision Application, allowing the exclusion of time spent before the wrong forum including the time spent prosecuting remedy with a bona fide belief before the High Court before filing the revision application. - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Limitation period for revision application ignoring time spent in pursuing remedy before the High Court.

Analysis:
The petition involved a question of limitation regarding the revision application. The petitioner, a Superintendent of Customs, faced penalties in a case related to seized goods. The Order-in-Original was passed in 2007, leading to a series of appeals and legal proceedings. The Commissioner (Appeals) imposed penalties in 2009, which were challenged before the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal in 2010 on jurisdictional grounds. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the High Court with a Tax Appeal, which was also rejected. The Revisional Authority then rejected the petitioner's application based on a detailed discussion of the Customs Act, citing a delay of 18 months. The key issue was whether the time spent in pursuing remedies before the Tribunal and the High Court should be considered in calculating the 3-month limitation period for filing the revision application.

The court examined the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which allows excluding time spent in pursuing remedies in good faith before the wrong forum while computing the limitation period. It was argued that the time spent before the Tribunal and the High Court should be considered to determine if the revision application was filed within the statutory 90-day limit. The court found that the Revisional Authority erred in not accounting for the time spent before the High Court and in misinterpreting the directions given in the Tax Appeal judgment. The court held that excluding the time spent in pursuing remedies before the wrong forum would bring the revision application within the prescribed limitation period.

Consequently, the court quashed the order of the Revisional Authority and directed the respondent to reconsider the Revision Application, allowing the exclusion of time spent before the wrong forum, including the time spent before the High Court. The respondent was instructed not to be influenced by previous observations while deciding on the merits of the Revision Application. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, disposing of the petition accordingly.