2015 (1) TMI 230 - AT - Service Tax

Delay in Filing Appeal Not Condoned: Service Tax Demand Order Upheld

Society For Promotion Of Nature Tourism And Sports (sports) Versus COCHIN-CUS NULL

The Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against an order confirming demand for service tax. Despite ... Condonation of delay - Inordinate delay of 505 days in filing appeal - Held that:- Assistant General Manager at the Head office of the petitioner in Cochin forwarded the order and thereafter did not bother as to what happened to it. In the matter involving more than ₹ 90 lakhs especially in view of the submission of the learned CA that appellant had been making only losses, it is surprising that AGM did not find time even to check with the Head Quarters what happened to the copy of the order sent. The date of receipt in the head office is not available. The date of completion of renovation of office is not available. No enquiry has been made by the appellant to find out how the order copy was misplaced in another file. Further the date on which Commissioner’s office sought clarification is also not indicated. The reason as to why the affidavits signed by the same individual contained totally different grounds for condonation of delay are not forth coming anywhere in the documents. It can be seen that the so called consultation with experts started only after August 2013 and thereafter there was no delay at all since within two months, appeal was filed. We have not found any justification for the delay which has occurred and the documents have not been prepared properly and affidavits have not been filed with care and truthfulness or the correctness of the affidavits have not even been considered by the persons signed the same. - Condonation denied. Issues:- Delay in filing appeal- Reasons for delay- Justification for condonation of delayDelay in filing appeal:The case involved a delay in filing an appeal against an order confirming demand for service tax. The appellant, a society engaged in various services, had taken registration only for tour operator service. The initial affidavit explained the delay due to consultations with experts, resulting in a delay of 505 days. The second affidavit provided additional reasons, including the transfer of key personnel, office renovation, file misplacement, and lack of knowledge of the order. The delay was not intentional, and the appeal was filed promptly after the order was traced.Reasons for delay:The first affidavit cited consultations with experts as the primary reason for the delay in filing the appeal. However, the second affidavit elaborated on various factors contributing to the delay, such as administrative changes, office renovation, file misplacement, and lack of awareness regarding the order. The appellant claimed that the delay was unintentional and sought condonation based on these reasons.Justification for condonation of delay:The Tribunal scrutinized the affidavits and found discrepancies in the reasons provided for the delay. Despite the additional grounds presented in the second affidavit, the Tribunal noted lapses in document preparation and lack of thorough investigation into the delay. The Tribunal concluded that the justifications presented were insufficient to warrant condonation of the delay. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was rejected, leading to the dismissal of the stay application and the appeal itself.In the end, the Tribunal pronounced the operative portion of the order in open court, emphasizing the rejection of the application for condonation of delay, resulting in the dismissal of the stay application and the appeal.