TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 939X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of M/S.PRACTICE STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, BANGALORE [ 2017 (1) TMI 659 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] has held that remedy available to the assessee to seek for condonation of delay beyond the statutory period of limitation is only under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India. In the circumstances, the writ petition deserves to be entertained. As regards the reasons assigned by the petitioner to condone the delay of 497 days may be unsatisfactory, but the same requires to be considered in the light of disposal of the original appeal by the Tribunal for non prosecution. It is well settled law that Tribunal is bound to dispose of the matter on merits even in the absence of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed the appeal before the Tribunal, which came to be dismissed on the ground that there was no representation by the assessee on the date of hearing. Further the petitioner had filed miscellaneous application before the Tribunal under Rule 24 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 ( Rules for short) to condone the delay of 497 days. 5. Tribunal dismissed the said miscellaneous application mainly on the ground that there is no competency for the Tribunal to condone the delay beyond 6 months. Hence this writ petition. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placing reliance on the judgment of Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in the case of SMT. RITHA S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... categorically observed that the miscellaneous petition was filed in a negligent manner and without rectifying the apparent defects. 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the material on record. 11. Indisputably, the miscellaneous petition was filed with the delay of 497 days before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has no power to condone the delay beyond 6 months, if so, the petitioner approaching this Court under Articles 226 and 227 cannot be held to be unjustifiable. The Division Bench of this Court in identical circumstances in the case of M/S.PRACTICE STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, BANGALORE reported in ILR 2016 KAR 4493 h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
