9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 1423 - HC - Service TaxCondonation of delay in filing appeal - power of Appellate authority to condone delay - Held that - We do not find that within the narrow compass of the jurisdiction in such kind of cases the petitioner s explanation would pass the muster - The delay is substantial as against the legislative intent that no appeal should be entertained beyond a maximum period of 90 days. The petitioner has consumed more than a year in agitating the issues - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
Issues: Challenge to order-in-original beyond the statutory time limit for filing appeal.
In the present case, the petitioner challenged an order-in-original dated 06.01.2016 by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs, and Service Tax, Vadodara. The petitioner missed the statutory time limit of 60 days for filing an appeal against the order and sought to challenge it through a writ petition. The Finance Act, 1944 allows for a 30-day extension if sufficient cause is shown, but beyond this, no further delay can be condoned. The High Court clarified that while the appellate authority cannot entertain an appeal filed beyond 90 days, the writ jurisdiction of the Court is not debarred to examine the legality of the order-in-original. The Court referred to previous judgments emphasizing that the writ remedy should not be a parallel appellate remedy and that delays must be small and well-explained to prevent gross injustice. The petitioner in this case explained the delay of over 400 days by stating that their consultant failed to defend the case properly before the Adjudicating authority and did not communicate the decision promptly. The petitioner also mentioned depositing 10% of the disputed tax dues for filing an appeal, only to later discover that no appeal was actually filed by the consultant. Despite these explanations, the Court found that the delay was substantial and did not align with the legislative intent of not entertaining appeals beyond 90 days. The Court noted that the petitioner took over a year to address the issues raised, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
|
