Court dismisses writ petition challenging service tax liability for failure to file timely appeal

The Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the impugned order confirming service tax liability for services provided by the petitioner between July 2008 to March 2009. The Court held that the petitioner's failure to file a statutory appeal in time, citing bereavement as a reason, did not justify the delay. Due to the petitioner's negligence in not participating in the adjudicatory process and failing to file a timely appeal, the Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it without costs.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to impugned order confirming service tax liability for taxable services provided by petitioner between July 2008 to March 2009. Failure to file statutory appeal due to bereavement in the family. Petitioner's negligence in not participating in the adjudicatory mechanism and not filing a statutory appeal in time.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 29.12.2009, where the 1st respondent confirmed a sum as service tax on taxable services provided between July 2008 to March 2009. The impugned order was based on a show cause notice issued on 10.09.2008, regarding taxable services under the category of erection, commissioning, and installation service. The petitioner contended that due to the demise of his wife on 01.07.2007, he could not file a statutory appeal, hence approaching the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Court noted that although the petitioner was issued a show cause notice in 2008, he failed to respond to it. It was observed that the petitioner's wife passed away in 2007, before the issuance of the show cause notice. The petitioner also did not file a reply to the notice. The Court highlighted that post the impugned order in 2009, the petitioner should have appealed to the 2nd respondent Appellate Commissioner within 60 days, or later with an application for condoning the delay. The Court emphasized that the petitioner did not take any steps to file a statutory appeal or approach the Court within the stipulated time frame.

The Court further mentioned that the petitioner's writ petition was filed long after the statutory limitation period had lapsed in 2011. Due to the petitioner's negligence in not participating in the adjudicatory mechanism and failing to file a statutory appeal in time, the Court held that there was no merit in the petition. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed without costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. The Court's decision was based on the petitioner's failure to adhere to the statutory appeal timeline and participate in the legal process provided under the Act.

---