Appeal Dismissed Due to Delay - Lack of Explanation

The Tribunal rejected the delay condonation application and dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's failure to satisfactorily explain the delay in filing the appeal. Despite multiple opportunities granted to the appellant's Counsel to verify facts and press the application, the delay remained unexplained. The original order was served on the appellant's Counsel, which was deemed sufficient service on the appellant. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the delay was attributable to the appellant's lack of a satisfactory explanation, leading to the rejection of the delay condonation application and the dismissal of the appeal.

---

---

Issues:
Delay in filing the appeal, Service of appellate order, Condonation of delay

Delay in filing the appeal:
The appeal was filed with an application seeking condonation of delay as the order impugned was dated 18 September, 2018, and the appeal was filed on 11 March, 2019. The appellant claimed that they only became aware of the order in January 2019 when the service recipient stopped payment due to recovery proceedings. The appellant repeatedly requested the Department for a certified copy of the order but only received a photocopy on 22 February, 2019. The Department claimed that the original order was served on the appellant's Counsel on 24 September, 2018, and service on Counsel is considered service on the party. The Tribunal noted that despite the service on Counsel, the appellant failed to explain the delay satisfactorily, leading to the rejection of the delay condonation application and dismissal of the appeal.

Service of appellate order:
The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed in a communication that the original order was served on the appellant's Counsel on 24 September, 2018, with the Counsel's signature on the dispatch register. The appellant had claimed in the delay condonation application that they were not served with a certified copy of the order, but the Tribunal held that service on the Counsel is sufficient. The appellant's Counsel, who had appeared before the Commissioner (Appeals), had instructed the Counsel who drafted the appeal. Despite seeking time to verify facts, the appellant's Counsel did not appear to press the application, leading to the rejection of the delay condonation and dismissal of the appeal.

Condonation of delay:
The Tribunal granted multiple opportunities for the appellant's Counsel to verify facts and press the delay condonation application. However, the Counsel did not appear to press the application, and it was noted that the delay in filing the appeal was not satisfactorily explained. Consequently, the delay condonation application was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal. The original order was served on the appellant's Counsel, which was considered sufficient service on the appellant, and the delay was attributed to the appellant's lack of satisfactory explanation.

---