2026 (2) TMI 19 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay in appeal denied where authorised representative existed; appeal dismissed for lack of sufficient cause.

Condonation of delay is denied where the party had an authorised representative/chartered accountant capable of filing the appeal within time, so absence ... Condonation of delay - 'sufficient cause' and liberal construction to advance substantial justice - Negligence, inaction or lack of bonafides of party or counsel - Limitation and time-bar for filing appeals - HELD THAT:- It is admitted fact that applicant has office of Authorized Representative / Chartered Accountant for taking appropriate legal steps regarding impugned order. Therefore, he had legal expert and they were capable of providing him legal advice about the filing of appeal within stipulated period or within reasonable period. Merely on the ground of delay such benefit cannot be denied to the appellants. Therefore, in that case some agriculturist received higher rate of compensation in same acquisition of land and these appellant’s where denied on the grounds of limitation. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the latest judgment Shivamma (Dead) by LRS Vs Karnataka Housing Board & ORS [2025 (9) TMI 1721 - SUPREME COURT] wherein, held that “No litigant should be permitted to be so lethargic and apathetic, much less be permitted by the courts to misuse the process of law”. Hon’ble Supreme Court also held that ‘There is, it is true, no general principle saving the party from all mistakes of its counsel. If there is negligence, deliberate or gross inaction or lack of bonafides on the part of the party or its counsel there is no reason why the opposite side should be exposed to a time barred appeal’. Therefore, the ground taken by the applicant in approaching this Tribunal after such a long delay is not justified. Therefore, application for Condonation of Delay is liable to be dismissed for want of any sufficient cause. The application for Condonation of Delay is dismissed and consequently the appeal stands dismissed. Issues: Whether the delay of 932 days in filing the appeal under Section 86(5) of the Finance Act, 1994 (Service Tax) is liable to be condoned.Analysis: The application for condonation does not specify the actual date of receipt of the impugned order and relies on assertions of ignorance of the statutory time limit, reliance on professional representatives, and unspecified medical ailments. The record shows the appellant had an authorised representative/chartered accountant responsible for taking legal steps. The delay of 932 days is substantial and the affidavit fails to quantify the period of incapacity due to medical reasons or to demonstrate absence of negligence or inaction. Relevant precedent advocating liberal, justice-oriented construction of 'sufficient cause' was examined and distinguished on the facts, while more recent authority emphasizing that parties should not be permitted to be lethargic or to misuse process was applied to the facts of this case.Conclusion: The application for condonation of delay is dismissed; the appeal is dismissed. (Decision is in favour of Revenue.)