9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 366 - HC - Service TaxCondonation of delay - Issue related to Renting of immovable property - Held that - It is not in dispute that similar issues with respect to taxability of services rendered in the renting of immovable property are pending before the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Retailers Association of India v. Union of India & Ors, and further the appellants own case for the earlier and subsequent years are pending before the Tribunal - Coupled with this fact, the aspect that the order dated 26.03.2012 came to be served on the employee of a sister concern and the same came to the notice of the appellant belatedly, cannot be ignored. No motive as such can be attributed to the appellant for not filing appeal in time, especially in view of the fact that the appellant is diligently agitating the issue involved as against the assessment for the previous years and also for subsequent years, which fact is not disputed before us. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal could have taken a lenient view and, by putting the appellant on terms, could have condoned the delay. Inasmuch as the Tribunal failed to exercise the discretion, considering the facts of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal, however, on condition of the appellant depositing a sum of ₹ 3,50,000 /- - Delay condoned.
Issues:
Challenge to order of CESTAT, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore, regarding tax assessment for logistic services. Failure to comply with pre-deposit condition leading to dismissal of appeal. Delay in filing appeal before CESTAT. Dispute over service of order dated 26.03.2012. Allegations of delay tactics by the appellant. Pending issues before Supreme Court and Tribunal. Discretion of Tribunal in condoning delay. Analysis: The High Court of Andhra Pradesh was presented with a challenge to an order of CESTAT, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore, related to tax assessment for logistic services. The appellant, engaged in providing logistic services, was assessed for services rendered in renting immovable property. The Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax (Appeals) directed the appellant to deposit 50% of the disputed tax as a pre-condition for entertaining the appeal. However, the appellant failed to comply, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) for violation of the pre-deposit condition. The appellant then filed an appeal before CESTAT, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore, after a delay of 312 days. The Tribunal refused to condone the delay, citing unsatisfactory reasons provided in the affidavit for condonation of delay. The Tribunal dismissed the delay condonation petition and subsequently the appeal itself, prompting the appellant to challenge this order before the High Court. The appellant argued that they were not aware of the order dated 26.03.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as it was not served on them directly. The appellant contended that the order was served on an employee of a sister company, and thus, they were unaware of the dismissal of the appeal. The appellant's counsel emphasized the lack of a specific finding by the Tribunal that the order was served on the appellant directly. On the other hand, the Department's Standing Counsel accused the appellant of employing delay tactics and lacking diligence in prosecuting the appeal. The Department contended that the reasons provided in the delay condonation petition were not valid, and the Tribunal rightfully dismissed the appeal due to the delay in filing and non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition. After considering the arguments, the High Court found in favor of the appellant, noting that similar issues were pending before the Supreme Court and the Tribunal for previous and subsequent years. The Court acknowledged that the order dated 26.03.2012 was served on an employee of a sister concern, leading to delayed notice for the appellant. The Court opined that the Tribunal could have taken a lenient view and allowed the appeal on condition of the appellant depositing a specified sum within a set period. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal on the condition of the appellant depositing the specified amount within six weeks. The appeal was to be restored to the Tribunal for further consideration on merits, along with the pending appeal related to the appellant's case for previous years. The Court clarified that the deposit condition was specific to the case and should not be considered a precedent for future cases.
|
