2024 (11) TMI 1233 - HC - Service Tax

Dismissal of appeal as filed belatedly and beyond the time permitted by the statute - petitioner vehemently submits that this is a case where certain events peculiar to the petitioner have to be noticed while this Court considers the question as to whether the appeal filed by the petitioner must be restored to file for the purposes of disposal on the merits of the matter - HELD THAT - As in normal circumstances, this Court will not restore an appeal which has been rejected on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of limitation if it has found that such rejection was justified by the statutory provisions governing the filing of such appeal. However, if this Court comes to the conclusion that there are some special and extraordinary circumstances which could have prevented the person filing the appeal from presenting the appeal within time, this Court cannot be denuded of the authority to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal on the merits and to take a decision in the matter. Taking cue from the observations of the Supreme Court in B.C. Chaturvedi 1995 (11) TMI 379 - SUPREME COURT in the extraordinary and special circumstances of this case, the order of the Appellate Authority can be set aside and the appeal filed by the petitioner against Ext. P3 order can be restored to file with a direction to the Appellate Authority to hear and dispose of the appeal on merits and in accordance with the law. This writ petition is allowed, setting aside Ext. P5 order of the Appellate Authority and directing that the appeal filed by the petitioner against Ext. P3 order-in-original shall be heard and disposed of in accordance with the law.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal filed beyond the time permitted by statute, Special circumstances preventing timely filing of appeal, Restoration of appeal for consideration on merits.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed an appeal against a demand under the Finance Act, 1994, which was dismissed as belated by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner argued that various events, including a First Information Report against bank officials and seizures from the bank's offices, led to the delay in filing the appeal. The Enforcement Directorate also initiated proceedings against former bank officials under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The petitioner sought restoration of the appeal based on these special circumstances. The respondents opposed, citing the appeal as time-barred and unaffected by Covid-19 related extensions.

The Court considered the Supreme Court's stance on the power of High Courts to do complete justice, as highlighted in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India. The judgment emphasized that if special and extraordinary circumstances exist that prevented timely filing of an appeal, the Court has the authority to set aside the rejection and restore the appeal for consideration on merits. The Court referred to the concurring judgment of B. L. Hansaria, J, in the aforementioned case, which discussed the power of High Courts to modify penalties when necessary to achieve complete justice.

Based on the exceptional circumstances presented by the petitioner, the Court decided to set aside the Appellate Authority's order and restore the appeal for hearing on merits. The judgment highlighted that this decision was made in consideration of the unique circumstances of the case and should not be treated as a precedent for all cases of appeals filed beyond the limitation period. The writ petition was allowed, directing the Appellate Authority to hear and dispose of the appeal in accordance with the law, ensuring the petitioner's right to be heard.

In conclusion, the Court's decision to restore the appeal was based on the recognition of special circumstances that impeded the timely filing of the appeal. The judgment underscored the High Court's authority to intervene in such cases to ensure justice is served, emphasizing the need to consider unique factors that may have affected the appeal's timeliness.