2014 (12) TMI 550 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - delay was caused due to the elections to various Co-operative Societies, which were in full swing in Tamil Nadu at the time of receipt of the Order-in-Appeal - Held that - Authorised Representative for the Revenue placed the documents from the website that the election in respect of these applicants was held during the period from 09.05.2013 to 10.06.2013. It is seen that the papers were signed by the Sub-Registrar/Managing Director. Therefore, the reasons for delay in filing the appeal for election has no substance. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Office of the Chief Post Master General 2012 (4) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA dismissed the appeal and held that in the absence of exigencies, government cannot plead that there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fide, an liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice. In view of that, we do not find any merit in the COD applications. Accordingly, all the COD applications are rejected - Condonation denied.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeals due to elections in Co-operative Societies.

Analysis:
The judgment dealt with multiple appeals filed with applications for condonation of delay in filing appeals. The reason for the delay, common in all appeals, was attributed to the elections in various Co-operative Societies in Tamil Nadu. The appellants argued that the delay was due to the elections, and the decision-making process was impacted by the election procedures. However, the Tribunal found the reasons provided in the applications insufficient, as they did not specify the election period and were considered a mere bald statement. The Revenue Representative presented evidence from the Election Notification of the Tamil Nadu State Co-operative Society Election Commission, indicating that the elections were held from 09.05.2013 to 10.06.2013 and were signed by the Sub-Registrar/Managing Director of the Societies. Relying on a Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal concluded that the election process could not be a valid reason for condoning the delay in filing the appeals. As a result, the Tribunal rejected all applications for condonation of delay, leading to the dismissal of all appeals and stay applications.

This judgment highlights the importance of providing specific and valid reasons for delays in filing appeals. The Tribunal emphasized the need for substantial justification when seeking condonation of delay, especially when attributing the delay to external factors such as elections. Failure to provide detailed and substantiated reasons may result in the rejection of condonation applications and subsequent dismissal of appeals. The Tribunal's decision underscores the significance of adhering to procedural timelines and justifying any deviations effectively to ensure a fair and efficient legal process.