9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 1328 - AT - Service TaxCondonation of delay of 149 days in filing the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal - sufficient cause for delay or not - delay is because the order was not delivered to the appellant - HELD THAT - The order was delivered to the consultant due to which there was delay in appeal. This submission states that the appeal was filed by Chartered Accountant Shri Akshay Jain Partner of Shri Subhash Chand Jain Anurag and Associates before the Commissioner (Appeals). It further states that from the acknowledgement given by the appellant it is clear that for delivery of the order the consultant was called who after getting the written acknowledgement from the appellant received the order on 30.06.2023 had not informed the appellant. It is untenable for the appellant to give an acknowledgement on her letterhead under her signature (even if it was delivered through her consultant) and then claiming to be not aware that the order was received especially considering that she had pursued her remedy before the Commissioner (Appeals). According to the impugned order Shri Subhash Jain (not Shri Akshay Jain) had represented the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals). The show cause notice was not served on the appellant. It is not found how the show cause notice is relevant and its absence had caused the delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal when the appellant had filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) and had received and acknowledged the impugned order. The appellant paid the demand of tax with interest now under the new GST law. This submission has no relevance to the delay in filing the appeal - The appellant has a good case on merits. The merits of the case are irrelevant for deciding about the delay in filing the appeal. Conclusion - The appellant had not provided sufficient justification for the delay in filing this appeal. Both the applications for condonation of delay are rejected. Appeal dismissed.
The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this matter revolve around the condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. Specifically, the issues are:
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Delay in Filing the Appeal and Grounds for Condonation Legal Framework and Precedents: The statutory provisions governing appeals before the Tribunal prescribe strict timelines for filing appeals. The principle underlying condonation of delay is that sufficient cause must be shown for the delay, and the appellant must come with clean hands. Precedents emphasize that mere ignorance or negligence is insufficient to justify condonation. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal examined two applications for condonation of delay filed by the appellant. Initially, the appellant claimed receipt of the impugned order on 06.10.2023, resulting in a 42-day delay. However, the revenue produced an acknowledgement dated 30.06.2023, signed by the appellant on her firm's letterhead, confirming receipt of the order on that date. This factual contradiction undermined the appellant's claim. Further, the appellant admitted in the revised application that the order was received on 30.06.2023, and the appeal was filed only on 19.02.2024, resulting in a delay of 149 days. The appellant requested that the date of dispatch by speed post (16.02.2024) be considered the filing date. Key Evidence and Findings: The critical evidence was the written acknowledgement on the appellant's letterhead bearing her signature and stamp, confirming receipt of the order on 30.06.2023. Affidavits filed by the appellant and her Chartered Accountant were contradictory regarding who received the order and when it was communicated to the appellant. The appellant's representative before the Commissioner (Appeals) was Shri Subhash Jain, who was stated to have received the order, whereas the affidavit by Shri Akshay Jain claimed the order was collected by their staff and handed over late. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal held that the appellant's inconsistent statements and contradictory affidavits indicated a lack of bona fides. The fact that the appellant had pursued remedy before the Commissioner (Appeals) and had acknowledged receipt of the order on her letterhead negated the claim of ignorance or non-receipt. The Tribunal emphasized that delivery through a consultant or representative is valid, and the appellant cannot claim ignorance after acknowledging receipt. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant argued lack of education, non-delivery at registered address, non-service of show cause notice, and payment of tax under GST law as grounds for delay. The Tribunal rejected these on the following bases:
Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the appellant failed to provide sufficient justification for the delay, and the applications for condonation of delay were rightly rejected. 2. Credibility and Bona Fides of the Appellant's Claims Legal Framework: The principle that a party seeking condonation must come with clean hands and truthful disclosures is well-established. Courts scrutinize inconsistencies and contradictory affidavits critically. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal highlighted the contradictions between the appellant's affidavit and that of her Chartered Accountant regarding receipt and custody of the impugned order. The appellant's initial claim of receipt on 06.10.2023 was disproved by the revenue's evidence of receipt on 30.06.2023. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's signature on the acknowledgement matched the affidavit signature, confirming receipt. Key Evidence and Findings: The acknowledgement letter on appellant's letterhead, the affidavit of the appellant, and the affidavit of the Chartered Accountant were examined. The discrepancies and lack of explanation for delay in communicating the order internally within the appellant's representatives undermined credibility. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that acknowledgment of receipt binds the appellant regardless of whether the order was physically delivered to her or her representative. The appellant's failure to maintain consistent versions and to explain delay in internal communication was fatal. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant's contention that the order was received by a consultant but not communicated was rejected as untenable since the appellant had authorized representation before the Commissioner (Appeals) and had given written acknowledgement. Conclusion: The Tribunal found that the appellant did not act in good faith and that the delay was avoidable and unjustified. 3. Relevance of Merits and Other Grounds to Condonation Legal Framework: It is well settled that merits of the case are irrelevant to the question of condoning delay. The focus is on sufficiency of cause for delay. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal reiterated that the appellant's claim of having a good case on merits cannot be a ground for condonation. Similarly, payment of tax under GST law and non-service of show cause notice were found irrelevant to delay. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that procedural compliance is mandatory and merits cannot override statutory timelines unless sufficient cause is shown. Conclusion: These grounds were rightly rejected as irrelevant to condonation of delay. Significant Holdings: "Evidently, the appellant has not come to the court with clean hands." "It must be pointed out that the acknowledgement is on the letterhead of the appellant with a stamp of the appellant with the signature of the appellant." "It does not matter whether she had received it directly or through somebody representing her. Therefore, the submission that the order was delivered late to the appellant is without any force." "The appellant had not provided sufficient justification for the delay in filing this appeal." Core principles established include:
Final determinations:
|
