GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2017 (7) TMI 565 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

2017 (7) TMI 565 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - TMI - Condonation of delay in filing appeal - The Tribunal has attributed negligence to the Assessee in not filing the appeal in time - Held that: - though, the period of delay involved is 370 days, which, by no means, is an insignificant period, the Tribunal ought to have examined, whether the delay was deliberate, as mere negligence, by itself, in our view, would not disable the Assessee from having its matter decided on merits - the Tribunal has not carr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

P. Srinivas ORDER ( Judgment of the Court was delivered by Rajiv Shakdher, J. ) 1. Issue notice. Mr.A.P.Srinivas, accepts notice on behalf of the Respondent/Revenue. 1.1. With the consent of the counsels for parties, the captioned appeal is taken up for final hearing and disposal. 2. The captioned appeal has been filed by the Assessee and is directed against the order dated 07.11.2016, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, 'the Tribunal'). 2.1. By vi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ppears to be that upon receipt of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) by its office, the said order was misplaced by the clerical staff, which was discovered only at a later point in time in a correspondence file. 5.1. It is stated that the order dated 22.04.2015, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was received by the Assessee only on 14.05.2015. Since, the discovery of the said order was made in August, 2016, the appeal could be filed only thereafter. 5.2. Besides the aforesaid, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tially barred by limitation. 7. We have perused the record. The record shows that the allegation levelled against the Assessee, broadly, is that it did not deposit service tax, for the periods, spanning between April, 2005 and December, 2008, even though, it had collected service charges from its customers. The demand raised against the Assessee with regard to tax alone is a sum of ₹ 18,91,000/-. 7.1. Besides the above, the Assessee has also been called upon to pay interest and penalty. 8. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version