9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 498 - HC - Service TaxCondonation of delay in filing appeal - an appeal was filed by the Managing Director of the petitioner-firm with a delay of 272 days, due to reasons, beyond his control, like death of his mother, hospitalization and recovery of his illness - power of Commissioner (Appeals) to condone delay - HELD THAT - This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the Tribunal, on the ground that in a similar case in M/S. FALCON TYPES LTD. VERSUS THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (SEAPORT-IMPORT) 2016 (7) TMI 40 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , we have considered the power of the appellate authority to condone the delay beyond the extendable period and it was held that It is well settled law that When the appeal itself is time barred and when the appellate authority or the CESTAT, Chennai, cannot condone the delay, in terms of the statutory provisions, prescribing a specific period of limitation. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the appellate authority to condone delay. 2. Applicability of liberal approach in condoning delay. 3. Legislative intent regarding the period of limitation. 4. High Court's power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct appellate authorities. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the appellate authority to condone delay: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction to condone delays beyond the statutory period. The Tribunal stated, "Section 129 A (5) empowers this forum to condone the delay of any number of days," but clarified that the scope of appellate jurisdiction is limited and does not authorize the forum to assume the jurisdiction of the first appellate authority. The Tribunal emphasized that "the Ld. First Appellate Authority has exercised its discretion in the manner and in accordance with law on the limitation," and thus, it could not interfere with the findings regarding limitation. 2. Applicability of liberal approach in condoning delay: The petitioner argued that a liberal approach should be adopted in condoning delays, citing sufficient cause such as death and illness. However, the Tribunal noted, "No doubt, a liberal approach should be there provided the delay is before this forum," but emphasized that the statute authorizes only the authority before whom the issue is agitated to decide on the sufficiency of the cause for delay. 3. Legislative intent regarding the period of limitation: The High Court referred to several precedents to underline the legislative intent behind strict limitation periods. It cited the case of Falcon Types Ltd. v. Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, which held that appellate authorities are not empowered to condone delays beyond the extendable period. The Court reiterated that "under no circumstances, the appellate authority has power to condone the delay beyond 30 days." This principle was supported by various Supreme Court judgments, which consistently held that statutory authorities cannot extend limitation periods beyond what is explicitly provided by the legislature. 4. High Court's power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct appellate authorities: The petitioner sought the High Court's intervention under Article 226 to direct the appellate authority to consider the appeal on merits despite the delay. However, the High Court referred to the Indian Coffee Worker's Co-op. Society Ltd. case, which established that the High Court cannot extend the period of limitation by directing appellate authorities to consider time-barred appeals. The Court emphasized that "even if the High Court accepts the explanation given by the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period prescribed under the Act, it cannot direct the appellate authority to consider the matter on merits." Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming that the appellate authority and the Tribunal acted within their jurisdiction in dismissing the appeal as time-barred. The Court held that "the substantial questions of law raised by the appellant cannot be held in favour of the appellant," and thus, the appeal was dismissed with no costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition was also closed.
|
