TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 1109
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore CESTAT 30.10.2018 2.1 By his affidavit dated 10th January 2019, Commissioner Mumbai Central, has explained the reasons for delay stating- "4. I further say that the Appeal was filed on 30.10.2018 under verification of the Jurisdictional Commissioner of Mumbai Central CGST, against the impugned order OIO No 100/COMMR/9Dr.KNR)/CGST & CEX/MC/2017-18 dated 26.03.2018 along with an Misc Application for Condonation of Delay of 67 days. This delay of 67 days in filing the Appeal, happened on account of post-GST restructuring of CBEC and difficulties faced with implementation of new tax. Moreover shortage of staff at Head Quarter & Division level and acute pressure of work related to filing of appeals during the months of September & October, 2008 (2018). It is submitted that the delay was not on account of any negligence or inaction on the part of department. 5. I say that the delay caused in filing above appeal is for the reasons stated above and not malafide. I say that the Appellant has a very strong case on merits. I further say that grave prejudice would be caused to the Appellant if the delay in filing above Appeal is not condoned and the appeal is not heard on merits. Wher....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the relevant period referred to in sub-section (1) or sub- section (3) or sub-section (4) if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period." 3.2 Thus as per the above provisions, statutorily prescribed period of four months for filing the appeal from the dated of receipt of order appealed against by the Committee of Chief Commissioner, was available upto 24.08.2018. Since the appeal was actually presented on 30th October 2018, there is delay of 67 days in filing the appeal. The application under considerations seeks the condonation of this delay in presenting the appeal. 4.1 We have heard Shri M K Sarangi Additional Commissioner (Authorized Representative) for the revenue and Shri C S Biradar, Advocate for respondents. 4.2 Arguing for the Appellants, learned Authorized Representative submitted that in the present case the delay has occurred in filing the appeal for the reason that during the relevant period department was undergoing restructuring on account of introduction of GST (Goods and Service Tax). Since introduction of new scheme of taxation involved voluminous re-organization and restructuring of the Commissionerates, there h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tructuring of the CBEC on account of introduction of GST. No other ground has been mentioned for seeking such condonation of delay. 5.6 It is matter of record that GST regime in the country was introduced with effect from 1st July 2017. Since then appellant revenue has undergone structural and organizational changes which are natural consequence of shift in the tax regime. However, whether the said changes were the cause of such delay or it was sheer negligence on the part of authorities in presenting the appeal. In the affidavit filed Appellant Commissioner has not given any reason to explain the delay on account of such structural changes. Not even a iota of whisper in the application or the affidavit filed explaining how such change in regime has caused the delay in pursuing the appellat5e remedy in present case. Except for a sweeping statement of fact, that GST was under implementation nothing has been stated. 5.7 Further can in the present case when the order in original under challenge was dated 26.03.2018 and was received by the Committee of Chief Commissioners on 25.04.2018, can delay in filing the appeal that was to be filed by 24.04.2018 be attributed to the implementat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... State. Therefore, in the absence of any justifiable reason, the delay should not be condoned as a matter of course only because the Applicant is a State. We find that in the Kayani Bakery (supra), the delay in filing the Appeal is 2088 days and the Court found that there was no sufficient explanation for the delay. Thus, did not condone the delay. 6. In the present facts, we find that because of the introduction of GST regime, the entire department has to be re-structured. Thus, even though approval had been taken on 21st June 2017 to challenge the impugned order dated 17th March 2017 before this Court, the same could not be done by the Commissioner of Service Tax, as the re-organization became effective from 1st July 2017. It is only thereafter that the Applicant started the process and filed the accompanying Appeal. In the above view, we are satisfied with the reasons indicated in the Motion for the delay in filing the Appeal. Thus, delay condoned." 5.9 From the facts as referred in the above decision it is quite evident that the approval for filing the appeal was taken towards end of June 2017, and GST was introduced from 1st July 2017. After introduction of GST and on acco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....our months. In spite of affording another opportunity to file better affidavit by placing adequate material, neither the Department nor the person in-charge has filed any explanation for not applying the certified copy within the prescribed period. The other dates mentioned in the affidavit which we have already extracted, clearly show that there was delay at every stage and except mentioning the dates of receipt of the file and the decision taken, there is no explanation as to why such delay had occasioned. Though it was stated by the Department that the delay was due to unavoidable circumstances and genuine difficulties, the fact remains that from day one the Department or the person/persons concerned have not evinced diligence in prosecuting the matter to this Court by taking appropriate steps. 12) It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceeding....