2016 (10) TMI 191 - HC - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - 300 days - petitioner pointed out that the Tribunal s order was passed on 29-3-2014 and received by him on 8-5-2014. Also his business was in the nature of proprietary concern, and was struggling financially on account of various reasons including his personal misfortune when his daughter has committed suicide in the year 2011 - Held that - the delay being explained as above, ought to have been condoned. Usually, the Courts prefer substantial justice when pitted against technical requirements. In this context, the question of condonation is approached and the same would be seen liberally. Unless if it is found that the delay is inordinate or not explained at all or that the same is caused deliberately, mala fide or on account of total neglect and lethargy on the part of the applicant, the same is as far as possible, condoned. In the present case, the petitioner had pointed out that on account of his daughter s suicide followed by virtual standstill of his business on account of financial differences, there was scarcity of staff. These reasons combined together prevented the petitioner from preferring appeal in time. Therefore, the delay should have been condoned even after putting the petitioner to some terms. - Appeal disposed of

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order rejecting condonation of delay in filing appeal.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal rejecting the condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The petitioner received the order under challenge on 8-5-2014, which was passed on 29-3-2014. The petitioner cited personal misfortune due to his daughter's suicide in 2011 and financial struggles in his business as reasons for the delay. The Tribunal rejected the application for condonation, stating that the grounds presented did not sufficiently explain the delay post the receipt of the order. The High Court noted that courts usually prefer substantial justice over technicalities and approach condonation liberally unless the delay is inordinate, unexplained, deliberate, mala fide, or due to total neglect. In this case, the petitioner's daughter's suicide and financial difficulties causing a scarcity of staff were valid reasons for the delay. The High Court opined that the delay should have been condoned, even with some terms imposed on the petitioner.

The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the Tribunal's order and granting condonation of delay. The Tribunal was directed to hear the petitioner's appeal on merits. However, the petitioner was ordered to pay costs of &8377; 10,000 to the respondents. The petition was disposed of accordingly.