2019 (7) TMI 1354 - HC - Service Tax

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - reasons assigned for the delay is that the office of the petitioner was being shifted from Ulsoor to Marathhalli - bonafides shown for the delay or not - HELD THAT - The reasons assigned by the petitioner, in our view, constitutes sufficient cause. It is a bonafide error that has occasioned which is beyond the control of the petitioner. There is no deliberate delay caused by the petitioner. Even otherwise, rights of the parties should be determined and not rejected merely on technicalities and that too when there is substantial cause shown for the delay. Furthermore, it is not found find that the petitioner sought to gain by the delay. On the other hand, the condonation of delay would not affect any of the legal rights of the respondent. While condoning the delay, we are of the view that the petitioner requires to be saddled with costs - we deem it just and necessary to direct the petitioner to pay costs of ₹ 50,000/- with the Registry within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Justification for the delay in filing the appeal.
3. Consideration of sufficient cause for the delay.
4. Granting of costs to the petitioner upon condoning the delay.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissing their application seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal. The petitioner argued that the delay was due to the shifting of their office, during which the file was misplaced. The Tribunal rejected the appeal solely on the ground of delay.

2. The petitioner's counsel contended that the delay was due to the sudden death of their Chartered Accountant, causing disturbance in the company's functioning. Additionally, the office relocation from Ulsoor to Marathhalli led to the misplacement of the file. The petitioner sought condonation of delay based on these reasons.

3. The High Court, after considering the submissions from both parties, found that the reasons provided by the petitioner constituted sufficient cause for the delay. The Court noted that the delay was not deliberate and was beyond the petitioner's control. Emphasizing that rights should be determined without being rejected on technicalities, the Court held that there was a substantial cause shown for the delay. It was also observed that the petitioner did not seek to gain from the delay.

4. In light of the peculiar circumstances of the case, the High Court decided to condone the delay in filing the appeal. However, the Court directed the petitioner to pay costs of ?50,000 within a week from the date of the order. The writ petition was allowed, setting aside the Tribunal's order and restoring the appeal for a hearing on merits in accordance with the law.