Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2017 (10) TMI 616

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ting Board (HSAMB). The appellant did not pay service tax on the ground that the Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board is a statutory authority and any services provided to a statutory authority service tax is not payable but the order in Original demanded service tax from the appellant on 29.01.2014 which were received by the appellant on 03.02.2014. The said order was challenged by the appellant before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court on 28.02.2014 and the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court was pleased to issue notice of motion in the said civil writ petition no. 3863/2014 and the stay of the demand to grant on 03.03.2014, thereafter, the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court decided the writ petition filed by the appellan .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... iginal was passed on 21-8-1987 and the same was challenged before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in September, 1987 and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court had disposed the Writ Petition on 18-3-2010 with a direction to the appellant to file an appeal before the appellate authority within four weeks from today along with an application for condonation of delay. Admittedly, in this case the appellant has filed an appeal within four weeks as directed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. The only dispute in this case is that whether the time consumed in litigation before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court during the period from September, 1987 to 18-3-2010 is excludable for limitation purpose or not 5.1 The issue has been dealt by the Hon'ble Punjab & Har .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e appellate authority. Thereafter, the appellant filed a Writ Petition praying for quashing the order dated 16-2-1976, and the orders of the Appellate Collector and the Government of India dismissing the appeal and revision, respectively holding that it is barred by limitation. The Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court was of the view that the appellate authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal after the expiry of the total period of six months and that Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act could not be invoked by the appellants for calculating the period of limitation of six months. Against that order, the appellant preferred LPA before the Division Bench. Thereafter the Hon'ble High Court observed as under :- "14. In this cas .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tion 14(2) is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, we refrain from going into the merits of the appeal. 15. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that Section 14 of the Limitation Act is applicable to the proceedings under the Customs Act in respect of an appeal provided under Section 128 and the time spent in the High Court in the abortive attempt to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and before the Supreme Court will have to be excluded. If we exclude the time, there can be no doubt that it was within the period of six months. The bona fides of the appellants in pursuing the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution was never in dispute. In fact, the writ petition .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rises (supra), the appeal was filed after 21 months from the date of the services of the order dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In this case, the appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) with delay of 21 months and Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation that the same is filed beyond the period of 30 days of condonable period. The said order was taken up to the Hon'ble Apex Court that the Hon'ble Apex Court has inherent power to condone the delay. In that case the Hon'ble Apex Court considered that the Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 prescribed time-limit for filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the same cannot be extended. Therefore, the facts of that case are also n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates