2016 (8) TMI 452 - HC - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - investigation - recovery of tax - wilful suppression and mis-statement - Section 73(1) of the Finance Act - delay of 148 days in filing appeal - Held that - It is a settled legal position of law that substantial justice is pitted against the technical consideration, the said technical consideration should not be given a predominance. Technicality should not be allowed to come in the way of appellant to prosecute the appeal which has been filed - Delay condoned - appeal to be dealt on its own merits - Delay condoned - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to legality and validity of Tribunal's order not condoning delay in appeal filing.

Analysis:
The appellant, a company engaged in salt manufacturing, challenged the Tribunal's order dated 24.8.2015, which did not condone the delay of 148 days in filing the appeal. The appellant contended that the delay was due to genuine reasons beyond their control, specifically citing oversight by the person in charge of legal matters. The appellant's counsel argued that the Tribunal should have considered the detailed explanation provided in the affidavit submitted along with the application for condonation of delay. The counsel emphasized that the Tribunal's decision was arbitrary, lacked cogent reasons, and was based on technicalities rather than the merits of the case.

In response, the Standing Counsel representing the opponent argued that the Tribunal rightly exercised its discretion by not condoning the delay, as the appellant failed to demonstrate diligence or sincerity in filing the appeal. The Standing Counsel pointed out that a detailed affidavit was submitted to justify the Tribunal's decision, asserting that the delay of 148 days remained unexplained and should not be overturned in the interest of justice.

Upon reviewing the arguments presented by both parties and examining the impugned order, the Court found that the appellant's explanation for the delay had not been adequately considered by the Tribunal. The Court opined that the reasons provided by the appellant, including the oversight leading to the delay, warranted a lenient view instead of a hyper-technical approach. Emphasizing the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities, the Court concluded that the delay should not hinder the appellant from pursuing the appeal on its merits.

Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the Tribunal's order dated 24.8.2015, condoning the delay of 148 days in filing the appeal. The Court directed the Tribunal to proceed with the appellant's appeal based on its merits and in accordance with the law, emphasizing the importance of expeditious handling of the case. The Tax Appeal was disposed of accordingly.