2019 (4) TMI 2136 - HC - Service Tax

Application for condonation of delay was dismissed for non-prosecution - petitioner filed an application for restoration and allowed the same to be dismissed for non-prosecution - HELD THAT - In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has claimed that his advocate filed written submissions and requested the Tribunal to pass orders. It is represented by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that the advocate of the petitioner is aged about 90 years and that he is residing in Guntur. Therefore, unable to be present before the Tribunal, he has filed written submissions - It is not known whether written submissions were filed or not. But the petitioner has given some semblance of reason. The application filed by the petitioner seeking restoration of the condone delay application is allowed and the Tribunal is directed to take up the condone delay application and dispose of in accordance with law - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenge to order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal for dismissal of application for restoration.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, which dismissed the application for restoration. The petitioner had initially suffered an order-in-original dated 30-5-2012, which was confirmed by the first appellate authority on 18-3-2013. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a regular appeal before CESTAT, but there was a delay in filing the appeal. An application for condonation of delay was filed along with the appeal but was dismissed for non-prosecution. The petitioner then filed an application for restoration, which was also dismissed for non-prosecution, leading to the filing of the writ petition.

During the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel claimed that written submissions were filed with the Tribunal, and requested orders to be passed. The counsel, who was about 90 years old and residing in Guntur, was unable to be physically present before the Tribunal, hence the written submissions. However, the actual filing of written submissions was not confirmed. Despite this, the petitioner provided a reason for the absence of the counsel.

The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the Tribunal's order. The application seeking restoration of the condoned delay application was also allowed, directing the Tribunal to consider and dispose of it in accordance with the law. Any pending miscellaneous applications were to be closed, and no costs were awarded in the judgment.