9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (11) TMI 262 - HC - Service TaxCondonation of delay in filing appeal - appeal filed beyond the period of 32 days after the expiry of condonable period of limitation under section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 - delay on the ground that petitioner was out of country - sufficient reason for delay or not - HELD THAT - The order passed by the first respondent Appellant Commissioner cannot be faulted in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) LTU, KAKINADA ORS. VERSUS M/S. GLAXO SMITH KLINE CONSUMER HEALTH CARE LIMITED 2020 (5) TMI 149 - SUPREME COURT where it was held that Be that as it may, since the statutory period specified for filing of appeal had expired long back in August, 2017 itself and the appeal came to be filed by the respondent only on 24.9.2018, without substantiating the plea about inability to file appeal within the prescribed time, no indulgence could be shown to the respondent at all. However, at the same time, it has to be considered that the petitioner was not in a position to file an appeal prior to the date as is evident from the documents filed by the petitioner indicating that the petitioner was out of country between 24.11.2022 to 26.02.2023 - this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order and remits the case back to the first respondent to dispose the appeal on merits and in accordance with law without reference to the limitation. Petition disposed off.
Issues involved:
The Writ petition challenges the Order-in-Appeal rejecting the petitioner's appeal against the Order-in-Original due to a delay in filing the appeal beyond the condonable period of limitation under the Finance Act, 1994. Summary: The petitioner filed an appeal against the Order-in-Original beyond the permissible time limit, leading to its rejection by the first respondent Commissioner. The rejection was based on a Supreme Court ruling emphasizing the binding nature of limitation periods in special legislation. The petitioner argued that their absence from the country during the relevant period justified the delay in filing the appeal. The High Court acknowledged the petitioner's circumstances and set aside the impugned order, directing the first respondent to review the appeal on its merits without considering the limitation issue. The Court also mandated the petitioner to pre-deposit the required amount as per the Income Tax Act before the appeal can be processed. The Writ Petition was disposed of with these directives, with no costs incurred.
|
