2019 (2) TMI 1348 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay of 780 days in filing appeal - law of limitation - Held that - The Order to be challenged was announced on 28.04.2016. No doubt, the applicant has attached a date sheet showing the time taken in getting sanction to file the Appeal. But perusal thereof is sufficient to hold that the appellant s Department has acted absolutely with negligence while dealing with the matter of filing the Appeal for which a specific statutory period is provided. Ignorance of law is no excuse. Otherwise also as far as information about period of limitation for final appeal is concerned, the same is very much available on the preamble of the Order. It was mandatory even for the Government Department to be careful about that statutory time limit. The date sheet produced on record rather reflects the casual and negligent attitude of the appellant which is highly unappreciable for a Government Department. Even under the name of administrative constraints, the delay of 780 days is not sufficiently explained. The Application in hand is hereby dismissed for want of any reasonable explanation or sufficient cause shown for delay of more than two years rather for the apparent negligence on part of the appellant - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing the appeal, application for condonation of delay, ignorance of law as a ground for delay, interpretation of "sufficient cause," negligence by government department in following statutory time limits.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the issue of delay in filing an appeal against an order confirming a demand for service tax. The appellant, a government department, sought condonation of the delay citing lack of exposure to service tax laws. The appellant argued that the delay of 780 days should be excused based on the principle of "sufficient cause." However, the respondent contended that ignorance of the law cannot be a valid reason for such a significant delay, especially for a government department duty-bound to follow the law.

The tribunal, after considering the arguments from both sides, emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory time limits. Referring to legal precedents, the tribunal highlighted that while the principle of "sufficient cause" should advance substantial justice, it cannot justify delays resulting from negligence, dilatory tactics, or deliberate inaction. The tribunal underscored that the provisions of statutes must be given full effect to achieve the legislative intent and prevent rendering the laws ineffective.

In analyzing the facts of the case, the tribunal found that the government department's delay in filing the appeal was due to negligence. Despite the appellant's attempt to explain the delay through administrative constraints, the tribunal deemed the delay of 780 days unjustifiable. The tribunal rejected the appellant's reliance on case laws cited, emphasizing that ignorance of the law is not a valid excuse, especially when the statutory time limit was clearly indicated in the order.

Ultimately, the tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay, ruling that the delay of over two years was a result of the appellant's negligence and lack of reasonable explanation. The appeal was consequently dismissed due to the appellant's apparent failure to adhere to statutory time limits, highlighting the importance of timely compliance with legal requirements.