2019 (4) TMI 1694 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - time limitation - appeal filed after a period of almost one year and three months from the date of the original order - Manpower supply service - demand alongwith interest and penalties - HELD THAT - Once the appellant was aware of enquiry and investigation, which started way back in the year 2012 itself vide the letter of Superintendent, Service Tax dated 29.01.2012 and he also acknowledge receiving the show cause notice of 25.09.2013, in furtherance of said investigation, it was appellants incumbent duty to inform not only the Department but the adjudicating authorities as well about the change of address, if any, for his premises. Appellant failed to comply with the said mandate rather opted to maintain silence even of enquiring the status of the show cause notice, the demand whereof was confirmed by the original adjudicating authority in April, 2015. Law of Limitation - HELD THAT - Law of limitation is meant to fix a period to a lis. No doubt the delay cannot be allowed to take away the substantive right of the parties where the aggrieved party has merits otherwise but since it being a statutory mandate, the law has to be followed in true spirit specially when there is apparent delay either intentional or even negligent on the part of the appellant. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Timeliness of filing appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) regarding service tax demand.
2. Justification for delay in filing appeal.
3. Compliance with statutory requirements for address change notification.
4. Interpretation of law of limitation in tax matters.

Issue 1: Timeliness of filing appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) regarding service tax demand

The appellant argued that the appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) challenging the service tax demand was within the 60-day period from the date of receiving the certified copy of the Order-in-Original. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the delay in filing the appeal was abnormal and could not be condoned. The Commissioner (Appeals) highlighted instances where notices were sent to the appellant without being returned undelivered, indicating that the appellant had provided an address for communication. The law of limitation was emphasized to ensure the timely resolution of disputes, even if the delay was unintentional or negligent on the part of the appellant.

Issue 2: Justification for delay in filing appeal

The appellant contended that they only became aware of the order confirming the demand when they received the demand notice in July 2016. They argued that the appeal filed in September 2016 was within the 60-day period from obtaining the certified copy of the order. However, the Tribunal noted that the appellant had knowledge of the investigation since 2012 and received the show cause notice in 2013. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant failed to inform the authorities about any change in address and did not take necessary steps to stay informed about the proceedings. The Tribunal considered the reasons provided by the Commissioner (Appeals) for not condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

Issue 3: Compliance with statutory requirements for address change notification

The appellant claimed to have submitted a surrender application in 2013 due to the closure of their business at a specific address. However, the Tribunal observed that the surrender application and subsequent form submitted to the Department did not reflect a change in the appellant's address until September 2018. The Tribunal highlighted that the appellant had ample opportunities to update the authorities about any address changes but failed to do so in a timely manner. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of timely communication with the Department and adjudicating authorities to avoid delays in legal proceedings.

Issue 4: Interpretation of law of limitation in tax matters

The Tribunal referred to the case law of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishanamurthy to emphasize that delays in legal proceedings should not be condoned unless there are valid reasons and the delay was not intentional or part of a dilatory strategy. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the speaking reasons provided in the order. It concluded that the grounds presented by the appellant were insufficient to entertain the appeal after a significant delay from the date of the original order. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, highlighting the importance of adhering to statutory timelines in tax matters.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues surrounding the timeliness of filing an appeal, justification for delay, compliance with statutory requirements, and the interpretation of the law of limitation in tax matters.