2014 (12) TMI 418 - HC - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - Power of appellate authority to condone delay beyond period of 90days - Held that - in particular sub section (3A) and its proviso, clearly shows that the period of two months is provided for filing of appeal before the appellate authority. However, the appellate authority, if satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the said period of two months, has power to allow filing of appeal within a further period of one month. Thus, total period that is allowed by this provision is or outer limit for preferring appeal is three months i.e. two months as a matter of right and next one months for sufficient cause. It is clearly seen that beyond the said outer limit of three months, there is no enabling provision for the appellate authority to either entertain the appeal or condone the delay. In our opinion, that is the plain reading of the provision. appellate authority under section 85 (3A) of the Act does not have authority to condone the delay beyond 90 days, that being the outer limit as per the said provision. - Decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of section 85(3A) of the Service Tax - Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994 regarding the outer limit for filing appeals before the appellate authority.

Analysis:

The judgment by the High Court of Bombay addressed the question of law regarding the outer limit for filing appeals under section 85(3A) of the Service Tax - Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994. The court examined whether the appellate court has the power to entertain an appeal or condone the delay beyond the outer limit of three months or 90 days as provided by the Act. Section 85(3A) mandates that an appeal must be presented within two months from the date of receipt of the decision or order, with a provision allowing for a further period of one month if there is sufficient cause. The total period allowed for filing an appeal is three months, comprising two months as a matter of right and an additional month for sufficient cause. The court emphasized that there is no enabling provision for the appellate authority to entertain an appeal or condone the delay beyond the three-month outer limit. This interpretation was supported by a Three Judges Bench judgment of the apex Court, further reinforcing the strict adherence to the statutory timeline.

The court's analysis highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and the lack of discretion for the appellate authority to extend the filing period beyond the prescribed three months. The judgment clarified that the appellate authority under section 85(3A) of the Act does not possess the authority to condone delays beyond the 90-day outer limit specified in the provision. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, affirming that the appellate authority must adhere strictly to the statutory timelines set forth in section 85(3A) without the ability to entertain appeals or condone delays beyond the prescribed limits.

In conclusion, the judgment by the High Court of Bombay provided a definitive interpretation of the outer limit for filing appeals under section 85(3A) of the Service Tax - Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994. The court's analysis underscored the strict adherence to the three-month timeline for filing appeals, emphasizing the lack of discretion for the appellate authority to entertain appeals or condone delays beyond the prescribed statutory limits. The decision serves as a crucial precedent in upholding the procedural requirements and timelines set forth in the Act.