2019 (8) TMI 81 - HC - Service Tax

Service Tax Appeal Dismissed for Delay, Precedent Upheld on Time Limitations

The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition challenging service tax orders and penalties due to being time-barred with no power to condone the delay. The ... Maintainability of appeal - time limitation - Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 - appeal dismissed on the ground that it was not filed within the period of limitation, and that there was no power to condone delay caused in filing the appeal - HELD THAT:- No case is made out as urged by Mrs. Wandile, learned Counsel for petitioner on the basis of Clause A.3 in paragraph no.31 of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court, since the appeal was preferred beyond the period of limitation, and there was no power to condone the delay caused in filing the appeal. Petition dismissed. Issues involved:Whether the High Court should entertain a Writ Petition under Article 226 challenging the orders determining service tax payable by the petitioner and imposing penalties when the statutory appeal was barred by limitation and there was no power to condone the delay.Analysis:The petitioner deposited an amount as per the court's condition, excluding penalties and other liabilities. The appeal to challenge the orders dated 31.07.2012 was dismissed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) based on a limitation issue, citing a Supreme Court decision. The matter was listed for a final decision after a Civil Application was filed for vacation of interim orders. The main question was whether the High Court should entertain the Writ Petition under Article 226 given the limitation issue and lack of power to condone the delay.It was established that the appeal was not filed within the 60-day limitation period, and even if considered a 90-day limit, there was still a delay of 14 days. The Full Bench of Gujarat High Court's decision was referenced, stating that limitations under Section 35 of the Act cannot be condoned beyond 30 days or 90 days. The petitioner argued that the Commissioner acted in flagrant disregard of rules or principles of natural justice, but the High Court found no justification for the penalties imposed based on the Assessing Authority's findings.The Assessing Authority's order indicated non-depositing of Service tax collected, leading to additional dues and penalties under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994. Despite the petitioner's arguments based on the Gujarat High Court decision, the High Court found no grounds to intervene under Article 226 due to the appeal being beyond the limitation period and the lack of power to condone the delay. Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed without costs.