2019 (6) TMI 1025 - HC - Service Tax

Partnership Firm's Appeal Allowed in Tax Dispute, Emphasizing Justice and Timely Access to Courts

The Court allowed the appeal by a Partnership Firm challenging tax authorities' orders on service tax liability for renting buildings, despite dismissal ... Condonation of delay of 124 days in filing appeal - time limitation - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the considered view that the reasons assigned by the petitioner in condoning the delay of 64 days calculated as 124 days by the Appellate Authority has to be construed as the sufficient cause shown and deserves to be condoned. However, in view of the statutory limitation on the powers, the Appellate Authority has declined to condone the said delay. There is no prohibition for this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction to condone the said delay of 64 days accepting the satisfactory explanation offered by the petitioner in view of the merits found in the appeal preferred by the Assessee subject to costs of ₹ 10,000/- which otherwise would result in failure of justice. The delay in preferring the appeal is condoned and the appeal is restored to the file of the respondent – Commissioner (Appeals) with a direction to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law in an expedite manner, in any event, not later than three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order subject to compliance of pre-deposit and cost of ₹ 10,000/- to be deposited with the respondent – Commissioner (Appeals) - petition disposed off. Issues:Assailing orders of Commissioner (Appeals) and Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax on service tax liability for renting of buildings; Rejection of appeal as time-barred by Commissioner (Appeals); Condonation of delay in filing appeal due to accident; Interpretation of Point of Taxation Rules, 2011; Compliance with pre-deposit conditions; Exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.Analysis:The petitioner, a Partnership Firm engaged in renting buildings for commercial purposes, challenged orders by tax authorities regarding service tax liability. The firm leased premises to a hotel with specific rent and deposit terms. A show-cause notice alleged liability for service tax on renting activities. The Adjudicating Authority's order, served in January 2018, led to an appeal before the Appellate Authority, filed in May 2018. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal as time-barred beyond the 30-day limit.The petitioner contended that the delay was due to an accident, but statutory limitations under the Finance Act restricted the Commissioner's discretion. The petitioner argued that the determination of the point of taxation under the Point of Taxation Rules, 2011 was not correctly understood by the authorities. Citing a Division Bench ruling, the petitioner sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, emphasizing the need to avoid undue benefits and deposit certain amounts if the appeal succeeds.Additionally, reliance was placed on judgments from other High Courts to support the petitioner's case. The petitioner asserted compliance with pre-deposit conditions. The Court, acknowledging the satisfactory explanation for the delay, invoked its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 to condone the delay, emphasizing the importance of ensuring justice. The appeal was restored to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a merit-based decision within three months, subject to pre-deposit and costs.In conclusion, the Court disposed of the writ petition, allowing the appeal to proceed, emphasizing the need for a speedy resolution while leaving all rights and contentions open for both parties.