2018 (9) TMI 834 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (14) G. S. T. L. 198 (All.) – Condonation of delay in filing appeal – power of appellate authority to condone delay – Held that:- 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 – petition disposed off. – Writ Tax No. 822 of 2018 Dated:- 23-5-2018 – Krishna Murari and Ashok Kumar, JJ. Shri Rishi Raj Kapoor, Counsel, for the Petitioner. Shri Ramesh Chandra Shukla, Counsel, for the Respondent. ORDER Learned Co
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
rganization directly under the Ministry of Home Affairs and was created for security of Industrial operations within country. It is registered under the Service Tax Act under the category of security agency service. The petitioner unit is engaged and providing security to National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) situated at Unchahar, Raebareli, U.P. 5. A notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause why it was not liable to pay Service Tax on medical reimbursement on C.I.S.F. personnel for the period April, 2009 to June, 2012 and Service 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 ₹ 8,43,581/- plus Education Cess @ 2% amounting to ₹ 16,872/- plus Higher Education Cess @ 1% amounting to ₹ 8,436/- total amounting to ₹ 8,68,889/-. An equal amount was levelled as
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ate but warranted on account of circumstances which were beyond the control of the petitioner. 8. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has vehemently opposed. It is submitted that the limitation prescribed for filing an appeal is 60 days and the appellate authority is empowered to condone the delay of another 30 days and thus the appellate authority rightly dismissed the appeal and the impugned order does not warrant any interference. 9. We have considered the arguments advanced by the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 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 c
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =