CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE Versus COMMR. OF CGST & C. EX.
Service Tax
2018 (9) TMI 834 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (14) G. S. T. L. 198 (All.) , [2019] 71 G S.T.R. 451 (All)
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 23-5-2018
Writ Tax No. 822 of 2018
Service Tax
Krishna Murari and Ashok Kumar, JJ.
Shri Rishi Raj Kapoor, Counsel, for the Petitioner.
Shri Ramesh Chandra Shukla, Counsel, for the Respondent.
ORDER
Learned Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead the appellate authority as respondent No. 4 to the writ petition and also carry out necessary amendment in the prayer clause of the writ petition during the course of the day.
2. The petitioner M/s. Central Industrial Security Force, FGUTPP Unit, Unchahar, Raebareli, has approached this Court challenging the order dated 12-2-2018 passed by the respondent No. 1 rejecting the rectification application made under Section 74 of the Finance Act as well as order dated 6-1-2017 rejecting the appe
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
vice Tax on accommodation charges incurred on the personnel for the same period. Proceedings were contested by the petitioner by giving a reply. The assessing authority vide order dated 17-3-2016 confirmed the demand of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 8,43,581/- plus Education Cess @ 2% amounting to Rs. 16,872/- plus Higher Education Cess @ 1% amounting to Rs. 8,436/- total amounting to Rs. 8,68,889/-. An equal amount was levelled as penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was imposed as late fee under Section 70 of the Act read with Rules 7C of the Rules of 1994.
6. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No. 1 vide order dated 6-1-2017. The appeal has been dismissed by respondent No. 1 being barred by limitation.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that delay had occasioned on account of time spent in obtaining sanction for filing of an appeal. It is also submitted that the authorities not being well conversant with the l
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
10. Admittedly the appeal was filed beyond time, however, in the facts and circumstances we are of the considered opinion that the delay was not occasioned because of any fault on the part of the petitioner but was due to circumstances which was beyond his control. However since the Act does not empowers the appellate authority to condone the delay 30 days beyond the prescribed limitation, no illegality is found to have been committed by the appellate authority however in the interest of justice we feel that the petitioner is entitled to be afforded an opportunity of hearing on merits.
11. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we set aside the order dated 6-1-2017 passed by the appellate authority as well as order dated 16-2-2018 passed on the rectification application and remit the matter back to the appellate authority, respondent No. 4 with a direction to consider and adjudicate upon the appeal filed by the petitioner on merits, without raising any objection
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =