2013 (7) TMI 780 - AT - Service Tax

Application for condonation of delay Delay of 72 days Held that - As per the recent judgment Office of the Chief Post Master General vs. Living Media India Ltd. reported in 2012 (4) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , the Hon ble Supreme Court observed that all Government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities must furnish reasonable and acceptable reasons for the delay and disclose a bona fide effort and cannot offer the usual explanation that the file was kept pending on account of an endemic procedural red tape - Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government/bureaucratic negligence - Reason furnished for the delay is unsatisfactory Decided against the Assessee.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in preferring the appeal.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the application seeking condonation of a delay of 72 days in preferring the appeal. The petitioner/appellant received the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on a specific date, and a series of correspondences followed, leading to the delay in filing the appeal. The reasons for the delay were explained, including seeking legal opinion, waiting for a response from the C.A., and the process of appointing an advocate. The timeline of events leading to the delay was meticulously detailed in the judgment. Reference was made to a previous decision by Hon'ble Justice Krishna Iyer, emphasizing the significance of timely actions in legal matters.

The counsel for the appellant cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a specific case to argue that delays inherent in bureaucratic processes should be considered a justification for delay in pursuing litigation. However, a recent judgment by the Supreme Court highlighted that all Government bodies must provide reasonable and acceptable reasons for delays, emphasizing the need for a bona fide effort and discouraging the use of procedural red tape as an excuse for delays. The Apex Court stressed that condonation of delay should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government negligence, emphasizing the duty of government departments to perform diligently and with commitment.

In the final analysis, considering the unsatisfactory reasons furnished for the delay, the tribunal declined to condone the delay. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was rejected, leading to the dismissal of both the stay application and the appeal. The judgment concluded by stating the decision was dictated and pronounced in open court, providing a comprehensive resolution to the issue of condonation of delay in preferring the appeal.