TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 564
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... during the Financial Year (FY) 2013-14, despite the fact that with effect from 01.07.2012 any service provided by the party which does not cover under the negative list of section 66D of Finance Act is taxable. No document nor any response to letter dated 08.06.2018 is submitted by appellant to show its activity to be eligible to any exemption by virtue of any notification. The scrutiny of third party evidence, the income tax statements, shows that appellant has earned income of Rs.91,23,380/- during the FY 2013-14. 3. Resultantly, service tax @ 12.36% on the said income amounting to Rs.11,27,649/- was proposed to be recovered vide show cause notice No.262/2013-14 dated 23.10.2018 alongwith the proportionate interest and the appropriate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h was condonable by Commissioner (Appeals). However, the order is absolutely silent to that effect. The appeal has been dismissed on the ground of limitation as the Order in Original pertains to the year 2019. With these submissions, the order under challenge is prayed to be set aside and the matter is prayed to be remanded for adjudication on merits. 6. While rebutting these submissions, ld. D.R. has impressed upon that all the processes i.e. the Show Cause Notice as well as the Order-in Original were duly served upon the appellant at the same address as was mentioned even in the letter demanding recovery of the demand confirmed. Since the processes were served through speed post, there is a presumption for the processes to have been de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fact is that the appellant received the copy of said Order in Original on 6th April, 2022 in pursuance of his application filed under RTI Act dated 31st March, 2023. I observe that the period required under section 85 3A of Finance Act for an appeal to be filed before Commissioner (Appeals) is two months from the date of receipt of the decision. In the present case, as already observed above, the date of receipt is 6th April, 2022. The appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) should have been filed on or before 5th June, 2022. Though the said section 85 of Finance Act has a proviso that the appeal can be presented within a further period of one month, however, the appellant has to satisfy the Commissioner (Appeals) that it was prevented by suff....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny litigant. The delay in such circumstance, that too, solely attributed to a part time Assistant is highly insufficient to be liberal towards the appellant. The ground of limitation though has to be dealt with liberally except in case of apparent negligence on part of the litigant. As observed, present is the case of absolute negligence. I draw my support from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Shanti Mishra, AIR 1976 SC 237 (SC) which is held that discretion given by section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 should not be defined or crystallized so as to convert a discretionary matter into a rigid rule of law. The expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction. Howev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....months from the date of communication to him of the decision or order. However, if the Commissioner is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of 60 days, he can allow it to be presented within a further period of 30 days. In other words, this clearly shows that the appeal has to be filed within 60 days but in terms of the proviso further 30 days time can be granted by the appellate authority to entertain the appeal. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 35 makes the position crystal clear that the appellate authority has no power to allow the appeal to be presented beyond the period of 30 days. The language used makes the position clear that the legislature i....