2015 (9) TMI 364 - HC - Service Tax

Condonation of Delay - Delay in filing of appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) - petitioners claiming benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act of 1963, to exclude the time consumed in disposal of the writ petition before this Court in computation of the delay - Held that - Sufficient cause is an expression which is found in various statutes. It essentially means as adequate or enough. There cannot be any straitjacket formula for accepting or rejecting the explanation furnished for delay caused in taking steps. - the causes shown for condonation have no acceptable value. In that view of the matter, the appeal deserves to be dismissed which we direct. There will be no order as to costs. There is tendency of those persons who are liable to make payment of the tax interest penalty to take a chance before this Court. This chance taking petitioner has filed a writ petition before this Court at his own peril and risk because some times it takes time for final adjudication of the writ and on another hand the period of limitation has already been started. It ought to be kept in mind by this type of chance taking petitioner that they should simultaneously prefer statutory appeals also so that whenever there are such type of clauses that limitation cannot be condoned beyond the period of thirty days the appeal may not be dismissed for want of condonation of delay. The petitioner is lethargic, but, certainly not an ignorant person and is knowing all fine niceties of law. Vigilant petitioner should have file their appeal within the limitation period or at least within condonable delay period. - Decision in the case of Flemingo (Duty Free Shop) Pvt. Ltd. 2015 (1) TMI 22 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT followed - Decided against the assessee.

Issues Involved:

1. Applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay by the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. Jurisdiction and authority of the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone delays beyond the statutory period.
3. The impact of filing writ petitions on the statutory appeal period.
4. Legal precedents and their applicability to the present case.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay by the Commissioner (Appeals):

The petitioner argued that Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 should apply to condone the delay in filing appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), citing decisions by the Supreme Court and Gujarat High Court. However, the court noted that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies only when the initial proceeding was pursued in good faith in a court lacking jurisdiction. The court found that the petitioner's writ petition was filed after the statutory appeal period had expired, thus Section 14 could not be invoked.

2. Jurisdiction and authority of the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone delays beyond the statutory period:

The court emphasized that under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994, the Commissioner (Appeals) can only condone delays up to a maximum of 30 days beyond the initial 60-day period. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, which clarified that the appellate authority has no power to condone delays beyond the additional 30 days. The petitioner's delay of approximately 15 months far exceeded this limit, rendering the Commissioner (Appeals) powerless to condone it.

3. The impact of filing writ petitions on the statutory appeal period:

The petitioner contended that the time spent in pursuing writ petitions should be excluded from the limitation period for filing appeals. The court rejected this argument, noting that the petitioner chose to file writ petitions at their own risk, knowing that statutory appeals had a strict limitation period. The court highlighted that such actions are taken at the petitioner's peril, and the statutory appeal period continues to run irrespective of any writ petitions filed.

4. Legal precedents and their applicability to the present case:

The court referred to multiple precedents, including the Supreme Court's decisions in Singh Enterprises and ITC Ltd. vs. Union of India, which consistently held that appellate authorities cannot condone delays beyond the statutory limit. The court also cited the Bombay High Court's decision, which reinforced that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply when the initial court had jurisdiction, and emphasized that petitioners cannot take advantage of their own delays by filing writ petitions.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that no error was committed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in dismissing the appeals due to the delay being beyond the condonable period. The writ petition was dismissed, affirming that the petitioner's delay of approximately 15 months could not be condoned under the statutory provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, and that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was inapplicable in this context.

← Previous Next →