9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 367 - AT - Service TaxCondonation of delay of 595 days in filing the appeal - sufficient cause for delay existing or not - declaration under Arrears category of the Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) - Section 5 of Limitation Act - Doctrine of Equality - HELD THAT - The words sufficient cause for not making the application within the period of limitation have to be understood and applied in a reasonable, pragmatic, practical and liberal manner however depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case and even the type of case. Hon ble Apex Court in the case of PERUMON BHAGVATHY DEVASWOM, PERINADU VILLAGE VERSUS BHARGAVI AMMA (DEAD) BY LRS ORS. 2008 (7) TMI 836 - SUPREME COURT has held that the words Sufficient Cause in Section 5 of Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice but only in a circumstance when the delay is not on account of any dilatory tactics, want of bona fides, deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the appellant. It is observed that the pleas about availing the benefit of Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme cannot be held to be a sufficient cause because Scheme came into effect from September, 2019 whereas the period of limitation to file the impugned appeal had expired on 11th March, 2019 itself i.e. almost six months prior the Scheme could had come into effect the period of limitation to file impugned appeal had already expired. Another reason about the death of the father in law of the appellant is also an event post-expiration of the period of limitation. None of the said two grounds explains the delay that occurred between 11.12.2018 and 11.03.2019. The non-filing of appeal by the consultant also is not the sufficient cause because appellant was required to pursue his consultant and to ensure that his appeal gets filed before 11.03.2018 but appellant failed - the same is definite inaction on part of appellant resulting out of his negligence. Hence none of the grounds could be considered as the sufficient cause due to which the appellant was restrained from filing the appeal during the prescribed period. The Hon ble Apex Court in the case of COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VERSUS MST. KATIJI AND OTHERS 1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT though has held that the expression sufficient cause is adequately elastic to apply the law in a meaningful manner to sub-serve the ends of the justice but only in case where delay is not on account of negligence. Also the said judgment simultaneously talks about the doctrine of equality holding that all litigants including the State as a litigant must be accorded an equal treatment and law should be administered in an even manner. The reasons mentioned in the application do not suffice to be called as sufficient cause as it should be in terms of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The appellant/applicant is rather observed to be absolutely non-diligent and question of exercising any leniency in his favour does not at all arise - Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Applicability of "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 3. Evaluation of reasons provided for the delay. 4. Impact of Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) on the delay. 5. Legal precedents and principles regarding condonation of delay. Detailed Analysis: 1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal: The appellant sought condonation of a 595-day delay in filing the appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 04.12.2018. The appeal was supposed to be filed by 11.03.2019, but it was delayed due to the appellant's consultant not filing it on time. 2. Applicability of "Sufficient Cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act: The Tribunal examined whether the reasons provided by the appellant constituted "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The appellant argued that the delay was due to reliance on the consultant and the subsequent impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. 3. Evaluation of Reasons Provided for the Delay: The appellant claimed that after receiving the Order-in-Appeal on 11.12.2018, it was handed over to the consultant for filing the appeal. The appellant later discovered that the consultant had not filed the appeal. Further, the appellant’s father-in-law's death and the lockdown due to COVID-19 were cited as reasons for the delay. The Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to exercise due diligence in ensuring the appeal was filed within the prescribed period. The appellant did not communicate with the consultant during the limitation period and did not provide a satisfactory explanation for this inaction. 4. Impact of Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) on the Delay: The appellant also mentioned applying under the SVLDRS, which came into effect on 01.09.2019, after the limitation period had already expired on 11.03.2019. The Tribunal held that the Scheme could not be considered a sufficient cause for the delay as it was announced after the limitation period ended. 5. Legal Precedents and Principles Regarding Condonation of Delay: The Tribunal referred to several legal precedents, emphasizing that while courts should take a liberal view in condoning delays to advance substantial justice, the explanation for the delay must be reasonable and satisfactory. Key cases cited included: - Bhavya Creators Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner, Central Excise, New Delhi - Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag & Another Vs MST Katiji and Others - Kerala Roadways Ltd. Vs CCE - Kothari Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise The Tribunal highlighted that the appellant's reasons did not constitute sufficient cause as per these precedents. The appellant's negligence and inaction were not excusable, and the delay was deemed inordinate. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the reasons provided by the appellant did not amount to "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The appellant's lack of diligence and failure to ensure the timely filing of the appeal were significant factors. Consequently, the application for condonation of the 595-day delay was dismissed.
|
