2019 (9) TMI 124 - HC - Service Tax

Renting of immovable property service - supplying the tangible goods to persons - non-compliance with the Section 67 of the Finance Act 1994 - HELD THAT - Appellate authority summarily dismissed the appeal on two counts, firstly, on the point of delay and secondly, on the point of non-deposit of necessary pre-requisite amount as is required under the Act of 1994. Both defaults went to the root of the matter - Consequently, the respondents were fully justified in dismissing the appeal on both counts. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order dated 30.01.2017 and 17.11.2017
2. Compliance with Section 67 of the Finance Act 1994
3. Filing of appeal beyond the prescribed time limit
4. Dismissal of appeal on grounds of delay and non-deposit of necessary amount

Analysis:
1. The petitioners challenged the orders dated 30.01.2017 and 17.11.2017 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise Service Tax, Jabalpur, and the Commissioner (Appeals) GST, Customs and Central Excise, Bhopal respectively. The petitioner, engaged in providing taxable services, failed to comply with Section 67 of the Finance Act 1994. The authority assessed the tax and raised a demand of ?2,08,06,540 /- for payment along with interest and penalty.

2. The petitioner received the order dated 30.01.2017 on the same day. However, the appeal against this order was filed beyond the prescribed time limit of two months. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal due to the delay in filing and non-deposit of the necessary pre-requisite amount as mandated by the Act of 1994. These defaults were considered fundamental to the case, justifying the dismissal of the appeal by the respondents.

3. The High Court found no infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders. The dismissal of the appeal on grounds of delay and non-compliance with the statutory requirements was deemed justified. The court concluded that there was no merit or substance in the writ petition and summarily dismissed it accordingly.

4. In summary, the High Court upheld the dismissal of the appeal against the orders dated 30.01.2017 and 17.11.2017, emphasizing the importance of complying with statutory requirements, including the timely filing of appeals and the deposit of necessary amounts as prescribed by law. The court's decision was based on the fundamental nature of the defaults in this case, leading to the rejection of the petition.