2019 (8) TMI 160 - HC - Service Tax

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - no explanation for delay provided - HELD THAT - The Petition for condonation of delay reflects a lackadaisical approach on the part of the Petitioner herein and as already pointed out no efforts were made to explain the delay from 15.08.2015 to 07.10.2016 - We are conscious and aware that the law of limitation is sufficiently elastic to allow and enable the concerned Authorities to apply it for substantial justice, but at the same time it may be mentioned that merely because a non-pedantic approach should be adopted to an application for condonation of delay it is not essential that every delay including those in which the drafting has been done in a haphazard manner and with nary a care to detail or explanation pertaining to the delay with dates thereof be condoned. Since the Petitioner has not explained the delay after 14.08.2015 which extended to more than one year, we are in agreement with the findings of the Learned Commissioner and that no error arises in the consequent order of rejection of the said Authority. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Condonation of delay in filing an appeal against a service tax order.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed an appeal against a service tax order dated 31.03.2015, seeking condonation of delay. The delay was explained from 23.05.2015 to 14.08.2015, totaling 84 days, attributing reasons like the advocate being out of station and natural calamities. However, no explanation was provided for the delay from 15.08.2015 to 07.10.2016 when the appeal was actually filed. The Commissioner found the reasons for delay flimsy and emphasized the responsibility of the petitioner to account for the entire delay period. The petitioner argued for condonation with costs, citing the need for substantial justice.

The High Court noted the lackadaisical approach of the petitioner in explaining the delay post 14.08.2015. While acknowledging the elasticity of the law of limitation for substantial justice, the Court highlighted the importance of a diligent approach in condonation applications. Referring to precedent, the Court emphasized the need for careful drafting of delay condonation requests. Since the petitioner failed to justify the delay extending over a year, the Court concurred with the Commissioner's decision to reject the condonation application. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, precluding a review of the case's merits due to the procedural lapse in delay explanation.