Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Vision Holidays Vs Customs Excise and Service Tax (Madras High Court)
Appeal Number : W.P .No.11898 of 2024
Date of Judgement/Order : 04/06/2024
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.

Vision Holidays Vs Customs Excise and Service Tax (Madras High Court)

The Madras High Court recently dismissed a writ petition filed by Vision Holidays, challenging an order of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) that rejected their application for condonation of a 2727-day delay in filing an appeal. The case centered on whether sufficient medical evidence was provided to justify the delay, highlighting the complexities and stringent requirements of legal processes in the context of administrative and tax-related appeals.

The appellate order, issued on February 23, 2016, required Vision Holidays to file an appeal by May 23, 2016, as stipulated under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994. However, the appeal was not filed until November 13, 2023, accompanied by an application to condone the extensive delay of 2727 days. Vision Holidays attributed the delay to the chronic illness of its Managing Partner, Mr. S.R. Bhoopathy, who was reportedly suffering from a chronic disc prolapse since 2016.

Petitioner’s Argument: The petitioner’s counsel argued that the CESTAT’s dismissal was unjust, as the tribunal failed to adequately consider the medical condition of Mr. Bhoopathy. They cited past judgments, including Tojo Tyre Retread v. CESTAT and Kone Elevator India Pvt. Ltd. v. Secretary Ministry of Finance, which advocate for a liberal interpretation of “sufficient cause” for delay. They also referenced a Bombay High Court ruling in Manish Vorani v. Union of India, emphasizing the need for compassionate consideration in cases involving significant health issues.

Respondent’s Argument: The respondents, represented by senior standing counsel Mr. K. Mohanamurali, contended that the petitioner did not demonstrate a sufficient cause for the delay. They highlighted the extraordinary length of the delay and the inadequacy of the medical evidence provided, which did not explicitly state that Mr. Bhoopathy was incapacitated to the extent of being unable to manage day-to-day affairs during the entire period in question.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.


Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Post by Date
July 2024