High Court directs registration of appeal challenging service tax demand, emphasizes exhausting remedies.

The High Court allowed the writ petition challenging the order passed by the first respondent, related to service tax demand. The Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal, emphasizing the importance of exhausting alternative remedies before approaching the High Court. The petitioner's compliance with the pre-deposit requirement was recognized, and the Court intervened to rectify the erroneous conclusion by the first respondent. Ultimately, the High Court directed the appellate authority to register the appeal, hear the petitioner, and pass a reasoned order on merits and in accordance with the law.

---

---

Issues:
Challenging order passed by first respondent; Failure to avail alternative remedy before Tribunal; Dismissal of appeal as time-barred; Compliance with pre-deposit issue; Condonation of delay in filing appeal.

Challenging Order Passed by First Respondent:
The petitioner challenged the order passed by the first respondent under Appeal No.254/2016, related to demand of service tax. The petitioner contended that the order was challenged on grounds other than the merits of assessment, justifying the approach to the High Court without availing the alternative remedy before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). The High Court entertained the writ petition based on the peculiar facts and circumstances presented.

Failure to Avail Alternative Remedy Before Tribunal:
The petitioner had the right to appeal before the Tribunal but chose to approach the High Court directly. The petitioner explained that due to specific circumstances of the case, the writ petition needed to be entertained by the High Court. The Court considered this explanation and proceeded with the case, emphasizing the importance of exhausting alternative remedies before approaching the High Court.

Dismissal of Appeal as Time-Barred:
The first respondent dismissed the petitioner's appeal as time-barred, citing a delay of 2 months and 28 days in filing the appeal. The petitioner explained that the delay was due to misplaced papers, which were later recovered, and there was no evidence to suggest otherwise. The High Court noted that the delay was not inordinate and within the condonable period, deciding to exercise discretion and condone the delay to ensure the matter could be adjudicated on its merits.

Compliance with Pre-Deposit Issue:
The petitioner had complied with the pre-deposit requirement by paying the ordered sum through banking channels. However, the first respondent erroneously concluded that the petitioner had not fulfilled this condition. The High Court recognized this factual error and deemed it necessary to intervene in this aspect of the first respondent's decision.

Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal:
Considering the genuine reason for the delay in filing the appeal and the absence of dilatory tactics, the High Court decided to allow the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order and directing the appellate authority to register the appeal, hear the petitioner, and pass a reasoned order on merits and in accordance with the law. The delay was condoned to ensure the petitioner's rights were not defeated unjustly.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order, condoned the delay in filing the appeal, and directed the appellate authority to proceed with the case.

---