Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + HC Service Tax - 2019 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 1351 - HC - Service TaxCondonation of delay of 387 days in filing appeal - sufficient cause - HELD THAT:- It is imperative to note that the order in original was passed on 12th January 2012. There was a delay in challenging the order in original before the Commissioner (Appeals) and, thus, the said appeal came to be dismissed as having been filed beyond the stipulated period of limitation, on 30th November 2016. The delay of 387 days in assailing the said order before the Tribunal, evidently, occurred at the second stage. It is true that the Court is expected to lean in favour of condonation of delay so that the lis is determined on merits. The Courts and Tribunal generally adopt a liberal approach and the expression, 'sufficient cause' is construed rather generously so as to advance substantial justice. However, the cause ascribed by a litigant must relate to the events which transpired in proximity to the passing of the order sought to be assailed. In the case at hand, the principal reason assigned for not filing the appeal is the death of one of the Partners of the petitioner No.1 firm. The said event occurred in the year 2010. The death of the partner of the petitioner No.1 occurred even before passing of the order in original. Since the order sought to be impugned before the Tribunal, was passed on 30th November 2016, the Tribunal was justified in refusing to condone the delay on account of a cause which had no causal connection with the period in question. If the said cause is discounted, then it seems to be a case of no specific and bonafide explanation relatable to the period of delay - The material on record, on the contrary, indicates that the petitioners have not been diligent in pursuing the remedies as the delay occurred in preferring the appeal against the order in original before the Commissioner (Appeals) and also in assailing the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) before the Tribunal. The impugned order cannot be said to be either perverse or unreasonable so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - petition dismissed.
|