Sutherland Global Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax, The Commissioner (Appeals) Office of the commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Appeals-II)
Service Tax
2018 (8) TMI 1405 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – TMI
MADRAS HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 7-8-2018
W.P.No.20219 of 2018, W.M.P.No.23686 of 2018
Service Tax
K. Ravichandrabaabu, J.
\nFor the Petitioner : Mr.Joseph Prabakar
\nFor the Respondents : Mrs.R.Hemalatha, Senior Standing Counsel
\nORDER
\nMrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel takes notice for the 1st and 2nd respondents and by consent the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
\n2. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order in original dated 25.01.2017 passed by the first respondent and the Order in Appeal dated 28.02.2018 passed by the second respondent.
\n3. Heard Mr.Joseph Prabakar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the responden<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n oner 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 had received the order in original had misplaced the same. It is also stated that the newly appointed person who handled the service tax matters subsequently discovered that the appeal against the order in original was not filed. Therefore, the petitioner filed the Appeal with a delay of 13 days. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n 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. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Sutherland Global Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax, The Commissioner (Appeals) Office of the commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Appeals-II)Service Tax2018 (8) TMI 1405 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – TMIMADRAS HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 7-8-2018W.P.No.20219 of 2018, W.M.P.No.23686 of 2018 Service TaxK. Ravichandrabaabu, J. For the Petitioner : Mr.Joseph Prabakar For … Continue reading “Sutherland Global Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax, The Commissioner (Appeals) Office of the commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Appeals-II)”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13390","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13390","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=13390"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13390\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13390"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13390"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13390"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n5. The Appellate Authority, however, refused to entertain the Appeal only on the reason that the same was filed beyond the period of limitation and the explanation given by the petitioner is not satisfactory. Thus, he rejected the Appeal on the ground of limitation, without going into the merits of the matter. Now, both the orders are put to challenge before this Court.
\n6. Perusal of the order passed by the first responde<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n8. Therefore, without expressing any view on the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner and on the order passed by the first respondent, this Writ Petition is allowed in part only by setting aside the order of the second respondent made in Appeal No.59\/2018 dated 28.02.2018. Consequently, the matter is remitted back to the second respondent for deciding the said Appeal on merits and in accordance with law, as this Court has not expressed any view on the merits of the matter. Such exercise shall be done by the second respondent within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, miscellaneous petition<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n