Tribunal rejects appeal due to delayed filing and lack of genuine claim

The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's application seeking condonation of a 221-day delay in filing an appeal due to non-receipt of an Order-in-Original. The Tribunal found that the appellant's claim of not receiving the order was not genuine, as it had been served on a partner of a related firm. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's conduct was not bona fide, evidenced by challenging the order in a Writ Petition before the High Court. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and stay petition in line with the Supreme Court decision and Section 129A(3).

---

---

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal due to non-receipt of order and communication of order through Speed Post.

Analysis:
The case involved two miscellaneous applications seeking condonation of a 221-day delay in filing an appeal due to the non-receipt of an Order-in-Original. The appellant claimed that they were not served with the order dated 7th May, 2012, until 22nd January, 2013. The appellant argued that the order had not been communicated to them, leading to the delay in filing the appeal. The appellant also challenged the order before the Calcutta High Court through a Writ Petition. The Revenue's Special Counsel contended that the appellant's approach was not bona fide, as investigations revealed that the order had been communicated, albeit to a partner of a related firm. The Revenue argued that the appellant's conduct of disputing the service of the order through Speed Post was not genuine. The Revenue cited Section 129A(3) and the decision of the Supreme Court in a similar case to support their argument that the delay should not be condoned.

The Tribunal noted that the appellant consistently claimed they had not received the order until a later date. However, investigations revealed that the order had been served to a partner of a related firm. The Tribunal found that the appellant's claim of non-communication of the order was not genuine, as evidenced by the filing of a Writ Petition before the High Court challenging the same order. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's approach was not bona fide throughout the proceedings and failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay. Citing the Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal dismissed the application seeking condonation of the 221-day delay and subsequently dismissed the appeal and stay petition.

---