2016 (1) TMI 619 - HC - Service Tax

Condonation of delay of 352 days before the first appellate authority - appellant submitted that the earlier counsel, namely, their Chartered Accountant, Amit Garg was not conversant with the service tax provisions and that he handed over the original order to his peon, who kept the same in the file and forgot to file the appeal within time. - Held that - Inconsistent stand has been taken by the appellant at every stage of the appeal. Three different stands have been taken; first before the First Appellate Authority, then before the Tribunal and now before this Court. It is apparently clear that under the garb of blaming someone else, the appellant is trying to invoke a sympathetic view of the Court to condone the delay. None of the active partner have the gumption to file a personal affidavit before this Court - Condonation denied - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Delay in filing appeal before the tribunal
- Grounds for condoning the delay
- Appellant's inconsistent stands at different stages of appeal
- Justifiability of the explanations provided for the delay

Delay in filing appeal before the tribunal:
The appellant filed a belated appeal before the tribunal, 389 days after the due date, regarding the service tax demand. The tribunal dismissed the appeal citing lack of reasons for condoning the delay. The appellant's plea that the active partner was not well-versed with legal provisions and was not highly educated was not accepted by the tribunal.

Grounds for condoning the delay:
Various reasons were presented by the appellant at different stages to explain the delay in filing the appeal. Initially, it was claimed that the Chartered Accountant handling the case was not familiar with service tax provisions, leading to the delay. Subsequently, a new explanation was given, involving an old lady partner who was mentally upset due to personal reasons and had kept the court order in an almirah, forgotten. The court deemed these explanations as inconsistent and untenable, considering them as an afterthought to invoke sympathy.

Appellant's inconsistent stands at different stages of appeal:
The court observed that the appellant had taken three different stands at various stages of the appeal process. The inconsistent explanations provided by the appellant, shifting blame to others and invoking sympathy, were considered an attempt to mislead the court. The lack of personal affidavits from the active partners further weakened the credibility of the explanations provided.

Justifiability of the explanations provided for the delay:
After considering all the explanations put forth by the appellant, the court concluded that the reasons presented were not sufficient to warrant condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. The court found the explanations to be an afterthought and lacking in credibility. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose for consideration and no costs were awarded.

In summary, the High Court dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's inconsistent stands, lack of credible reasons for the delay in filing the appeal, and the attempt to invoke sympathy through untenable explanations. The court found no grounds to interfere with the tribunal's decision and concluded that the explanations provided did not warrant the court's discretionary jurisdiction to condone the delay.