Case Law Details
Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Vs Assistant Commissioner of Central GST and Excise (Madras High Court)
The legal system can be complex, and sometimes, life circumstances can create hurdles that prevent us from adhering to legal timelines. Recently, the Madras High Court made an interesting judgment concerning the delay in filing a Service Tax Appeal. The case was Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Vs Assistant Commissioner of Central GST and Excise. The court decided to condone a delay of 455 days, attributing it to a lack of communication between a husband and wife. This article delves into the details and implications of this unique case.
The Case Background
The petitioner in this case is an ex-service man who, after completing his army service, worked on government construction contracts under the Public Works Department. He was a licensed contractor registered under Service Tax during the VAT regime. He was not aware of a service tax assessment order against him until his account was frozen, at which point he decided to appeal.
Key Points in the Judgment
- Acknowledgment of Delay: There was an enormous delay of 455 days in filing the appeal. However, the petitioner contended that he was not aware of the assessment order dated 16.12.2021 until 02.06.2023.
- Role of the Petitioner’s Wife: The acknowledgment receipt showed that the petitioner’s wife had received the assessment order. Yet, due to a communication gap between them, the petitioner was unaware of this.
- Legal Precedent: The learned counsel for the petitioner cited a case from the Gujarat High Court that was similar in nature, wherein the delay was condoned considering the special circumstances.
- Court’s Decision: The Madras High Court directed the petitioner to file an appeal within four weeks and to pay Rs. 5,000 to the respondents to condone the delay.
Legal and Social Implications
This case sets a precedent for other cases where personal circumstances interfere with legal proceedings. It emphasizes the role that open communication within a family can play in legal matters.
Conclusion
The Madras High Court’s decision to condone the 455-day delay in filing a Service Tax Appeal is a rare instance where personal circumstances were considered valid grounds for legal leniency. It reflects the court’s approach to balancing the strict rules of law with the realities of human life. However, it also serves as a reminder to maintain open lines of communication, especially on matters as crucial as legal notices, within a family.
This case could have broader implications, potentially setting a precedent for others in similar situations, but it also raises questions about the responsibilities and roles of individuals in adhering to legal timelines.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
This Writ Petition is filed for Mandamus, directing the first respondent to take on file the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order passed by the second respondent in KVPT-000-AC-06/202 1 dated 16.12.2021 without reference to the delay by condoning the same and decide the appeal on merit and in accordance with law.
2. The petitioner is an ex-service man. After completion of successful army service, the petitioner is executing “work contract” for the Government construction under the Public Works Department. The petitioner is a license contractor and registered under Service Tax during the VAT regime itself. The service tax assessment was conducted for the year 2013-2014 until 2015. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondents have not served the copy of the assessment order dated 16.12.2021, but the petitioner came to know about the order only on 02.06.2023, when the petitioner account was frozen by the respondents. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted an appeal along with the condone delay petition. The contention of the petitioner is that the order-in-original was not served to the petitioner. However, the respondents denied the same and has produced the copy of the acknowledgment.
3. On perusing the acknowledgment, it is seen that the petitioner’s wife has received the same. However, there was no communication between the petitioner and his wife. Hence, the petitioner is not in a position to file an appeal in time.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that there is a huge delay of 455 days. But learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the judgment rendered by the Gujarat High Court in the case of M/s. Manjeet Cotton Private Limited Vs Commissioner of State Tax in R/Special Civil Application No.16857 of 2022 dated 15.12.2022 and the relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder:
“9. Be that as it may, for present, the petitioner is desirous of going to the Appellate Authority for questioning and challenging the assessment which has been finalized and that being his right, if he has missed out on the limitation, condoning this period of limitation in the given circumstance, keeping the larger issue open, this petition is allowed”.
5. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to allow this Writ Petition. The petitioner is directed to file an appeal within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondents are directed to take the petitioner’s appeal on file and consider the appeal on merits. As far as the delay is concerned, the petitioner is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the respondents to condone the delay. The respondents shall consider the appeal within a period of four (4) months therefrom.
6. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
