2019 (6) TMI 963 - HC - Service Tax

Benefit of exemption notification - failure to fulfill the conditions - Condonation of delay in filing appeal - time limitation - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - the contention as raised neither relates to jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority nor can it be said that the Adjudicating Authority has acted in flagrant disregard to the law or violated principles of natural justice. The petitioner's plea with regard to the applicability of exemption notification was quite vague, inasmuch as the petitioner did not even bother to specify the exemption notification in question. Besides, in order to avail the benefit of exemption notification, it was for the petitioner to establish that the petitioner fulfilled the conditions with regard to supply to the specified agency. Merely raising a contention that the petitioner was entitled to benefit of exemption notification, really does not suffice in such matters. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order-in-original dated 31st January 2017 confirming service tax demand of ?35,06,153; Delay in instituting appeal to Commissioner (Appeals); Allegations of violation of principles of natural justice; Contention regarding benefit of exemption notification; Legal grounds for interference with time-barred appeal; Judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution; Vagueness in petitioner's plea for exemption notification; Lack of explanation for delay in instituting present petition.

Analysis:
The main challenge in this petition pertains to the order-in-original dated 31st January 2017, confirming a service tax demand of ?35,06,153. The petitioner, despite instituting an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), did so beyond the prescribed limitation period, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The petitioner questioned the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and sought relief for condonation of delay, which was not pressed. The petitioner contended that the Adjudicating Authority acted in violation of natural justice by rejecting the petitioner's claim for exemption due to failure to produce the notification. However, the Court found the plea regarding the exemption notification to be vague and lacking specificity, making it insufficient to establish entitlement to the exemption.

The petitioner argued that the Court could review the legality of the order-in-original despite the time-barred appeal, citing relevant case law. The Court examined the contentions raised and concluded that they did not relate to the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority or violations of natural justice. The Court emphasized that the petitioner needed to establish fulfillment of conditions for exemption, which was not adequately done. Additionally, the delay in instituting the present petition without a valid explanation further weakened the petitioner's case.

The Court referenced the decisions of other High Courts regarding judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution in similar matters. Despite the petitioner's reliance on case law, the Court found the grounds raised insufficient to warrant interference with the impugned order. The Court highlighted the importance of specificity in claiming exemptions and the necessity to establish fulfillment of conditions. Ultimately, due to the lack of merit in the petitioner's contentions and the unexplained delay in filing the present petition, the Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural timelines and providing clear and specific arguments in legal proceedings.