TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses appeal due to filing delay beyond statutory limit, emphasizing adherence to Finance Act provisions.</h1> <h3>Senior Superintendent of Post Office Versus Union of India</h3> Senior Superintendent of Post Office Versus Union of India - 2011 (24) S.T.R. 168 (Guj.) , [2012] 34 STT 84 (GUJ) Issues:Challenge to dismissal of appeal on the ground of delay in filing within the statutory limitation period.Analysis:The High Court judgment involved a challenge to the dismissal of an appeal by the Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Surat against the order dated 31-3-2009 passed by the Assistant Commissioner Service Tax. The appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of delay in filing, as it was filed after a year, exceeding the statutory limitation of three months for condonation of delay. The Commissioner (Appeals) cited the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, which clearly limited the power to condone delay to a maximum of three months.The Court acknowledged the statutory provisions regarding the filing of appeals and limitations under the Finance Act, 1994. It noted that the power of the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone delay was indeed restricted to a maximum of three months. Therefore, the Court found no illegality in the order under challenge based on the clear statutory limitations and the facts presented in the case.The petitioner's counsel referred to a previous judgment to argue that the High Court could intervene in cases where the statutory limit for condonation of delay was exceeded. However, the Court declined to adopt this approach in the current case due to the specific circumstances. The Court emphasized that the amount of service tax and penalty involved was not substantial, and it involved a transfer of funds between Central Government Departments. Given these factors, the Court decided not to exercise its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to entertain the challenge beyond the prescribed limitation period.The Court dismissed the petition, highlighting that the petitioner could still pursue resolution through departmental channels. The judgment concluded with the disposal of the petition and permitted direct service, maintaining the possibility for the petitioner to continue seeking resolution within the departmental framework.
TaxTMI 