2018 (8) TMI 1405 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – TMI – Condonation of delay in filing appeal – appeal rejected on the ground that the same was filed beyond the period of limitation – Held that:- Admittedly, the petitioner has filed the Appeal before the second respondent. However, as there was a delay of 13 days in filing such appeal, the second respondent refused to entertain the same – the order of the second respondent in rejecting the appeal only on the ground of limitation cannot be sustained, especially, when the petitioner has stated the reasons for filing such appeal with 13 days delay and when such reasons are not found to be either false or imaginary.
–
In any event, as the delay is only 13 days, the second respondent ought to have condoned the delay and considered the matter on merits – Writ Petition is allowed in part only by setting aside the order of the second respondent – matter is remitted back to the second respondent for deciding the said Appeal on merits and in accordan
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
a show cause notice dated 05.06.2013 proposing to demand differential service tax amount from 10.3% to 12.36% with interest. The first respondent, thereafter, after following due process of law, passed the impugned order-in-original dated 25.01.2017 confirming the demand of tax and interest, apart from levying penalty as well. There is no dispute to the fact that as against the order of Adjudicating Authority, a statutory appeal remedy lies before the Commissioner of Appeal, being the Appellate Authority and such Appeal has to be filed within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order in original. The petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent, however, with a delay of 13 days. The petitioner explained the delay in their application for condonation of delay, filed before the second respondent. It is stated in the said application that person in charge of handling the service tax matter in the petitioner Company, quit the company and that the said person who h
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
or otherwise of such reasonings and findings is to be gone into and decided by the next fact finding authority, namely, the Appellate Authority. It is well settled that in fiscal matters, entertaining the Writ Petition as against the order of adjudication is not permissible as the statutory Appellate remedy available under the relevant enactment has to be exhausted by the aggrieved party. 7. In this case, admittedly, the petitioner has filed the Appeal before the second respondent. However, as there was a delay of 13 days in filing such appeal, the second respondent refused to entertain the same. In the considered view of this Court, the order of the second respondent in rejecting the appeal only on the ground of limitation cannot be sustained, especially, when the petitioner has stated the reasons for filing such appeal with 13 days delay and when such reasons are not found to be either false or imaginary. In any event, as the delay is only 13 days, the second respondent ought to hav
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =