2019 (5) TMI 381 - HC - Service Tax

Condonation of delay of 684 days in filing the appeals - sufficient cause for not having filed the appeal or not - HELD THAT - On a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the petitions, it is seen that though the affidavit contains five paragraphs, three paragraphs are devoted to the merits of the matter and in paragraph 4, the petitioner has blamed his staff who were looking after the service tax matters. There is no explanation for the 684 days delay - Further more, the conduct of the petitioner in the proceedings before the Tribunal clearly precludes us from exercising any discretion in favour of the petitioner. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeals challenging CESTAT order

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to petitions filed to condone a delay of 684 days in filing appeals before the High Court challenging an order passed by the Customs, Central Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The conduct of the petitioner before the Tribunal is scrutinized, highlighting significant delays and lack of responsiveness. The respondent issued a show cause notice proposing substantial amounts towards service tax, interest, and penalties. The petitioner failed to respond promptly, leading to multiple adjournments and non-appearance at scheduled hearings. Despite various opportunities, including a warning of an ex parte decision, the petitioner remained negligent. The adjudicating authority eventually passed an order in March 2014 due to the petitioner's inaction.

The petitioner's subsequent actions, including a delayed appeal to CESTAT and failed attempts at restoration, further demonstrate a lack of diligence. The Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's application for condonation of delay, emphasizing the petitioner's consistent neglect. Despite a recovery notice issued in late 2018, the petitioner failed to take any steps towards filing an appeal before the High Court. The discrepancy between the date the appeal was claimed to be presented and the actual filing date raised additional concerns regarding the petitioner's credibility.

Upon reviewing the affidavit filed by the petitioner, the Court noted the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the significant delay. The petitioner's attempt to shift blame onto staff members handling service tax matters was deemed insufficient. The Court concluded that the petitioner's conduct throughout the proceedings, both before the Tribunal and in subsequent actions, did not warrant the exercise of discretion in their favor. Consequently, the Court found no justification to condone the prolonged and unexplained delay, leading to the dismissal of the petitions and rejection of the CMAs at the SR stage.