2018 (8) TMI 1290

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oner filed the present writ petition for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 13.10.2017 passed by the 2nd respondent made in Order No.329/2017 in GST Appeal No.717/2017 as per Annexure-F dismissing the appeal on the grounds of delay and non-payment of pre-deposit amount. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is working as Managing Director of the Company called M/s Hycom Engineering (India) Private Limited, Peenya, Bangalore. During the assessment year 2011-12, he received a sum of Rs. 18,00,000/- as salary and as per the Board's resolution in extraordinary meeting held on 28.1.2011, he was allotted with 10,00,000 sweat equity shares of Rs. 10/- each amounting to Rs. 1,00,00,000/- and he declared the same in his income ta....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Smt. Susheela, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent dismissing the appeal mainly on the ground of delay of 5 months and 3 days and non-payment of pre-deposit amount, is erroneous and contrary to the material on record. She would further contend that the petitioner has in fact made pre-deposit before the appellate authority on 10.7.2017 and the same has not been considered and the appellate authority ought to have decided the appeal on merits instead of dismissing the appeal on technicalities. She further contended that the 2nd respondent ought to have done justice between the parties on substantial rights and ought not to have dismissed the appeal on technicalities. Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....x under the provisions of Service Tax Act and penalty is also leviable. In response to the said show cause notice, petitioner filed reply on 9.6.2015 contending that his nature of service was as an 'employee' and that he has not rendered any service to the Company which is liable to tax under the Service Tax Act and requested for dropping the proposed levy. The 3rd respondent without considering the reply has proceeded to pass the order confirming the proposal and levied tax of Rs. 10,30,000/- under Section 73 and penalty of Rs. 10,30,000/- under Section 78 and Rs. 10,000/- each under Sections 68 and 69 of the Finance Act. 10. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respond....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The said aspect has not been considered by the 2nd respondent - appellate authority. The appellate authority proceeded to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it has no power to condone the delay beyond three months in view of the provisions of Section 85 of the Finance Act and also on the ground of non-payment of pre-deposit amount. 11. The 2nd respondent - appellate authority failed to take into consideration the reasons assigned by the petitioner that he is aged about 76 years and could not get registered online as an assessee within time and thereafter he could finally able to deposit the amount on 10.7.2017 through State Bank of India and filed the appeal on 31.8.2017. The appellate authority ought to have condoned the delay in ....