2016 (3) TMI 1001 - HC - Service Tax

Period of limitation - Condonation of delay of 223 days - Beyond the statutory time limit of three months and also beyond the condonable period of a further three months provided under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Held that - by following the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Albert & Company Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai 2014 (3) TMI 655 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , the first respondent has rightly dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation, since the first respondent does not have the power to condone the delay beyond the period of three months, as provided under Sec.85 of the Finance Act 1994. - Decided against the appellant

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing an appeal beyond the statutory time limit.
2. Authority's power to condone delay in filing an appeal.
3. Application of principles of natural justice in appeal proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus to challenge the dismissal of their appeal by the first respondent due to a delay of 223 days in filing the appeal against the second respondent's order. The first respondent dismissed the appeal citing that it exceeded the statutory time limit of three months and the further condonable period under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994.

2. The petitioner argued that the delay was due to the departure of the individual handling service tax matters, resulting in disarray of relevant papers. The petitioner relied on a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing the need for quasi-judicial authorities to provide reasons for their decisions, failing which the decision could be set aside. Additionally, another Supreme Court judgment highlighted the importance of explaining delays to avoid meritorious matters being dismissed unjustly.

3. The Standing Counsel for the respondents contended that there was no provision in the Finance Act to condone the delay beyond the prescribed three months. Referring to a Division Bench judgment, it was established that the appellate Tribunal lacked the authority to extend the statutory limitation period under Sec.85(3) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Division Bench's decision was supported by Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the Tribunal's limitation extension restrictions.

4. The Court, following the Division Bench's precedent, upheld the dismissal of the appeal due to the delay exceeding the statutory limit. It was concluded that the first respondent acted correctly as they lacked the power to condone delays beyond the three-month period specified in the Finance Act, 1994. The Court found no errors in the first respondent's order and dismissed the writ petition, stating it lacked merit and awarded no costs. The connected matters were consequently closed.