A. Mahalingam Vs Commissioner (Appeals) (Madras High Court)
In A. Mahalingam Vs Commissioner (Appeals), the Madras High Court examined a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Appeal dated 31.12.2024, which had dismissed the petitioner’s appeal on account of a delay of 247 days. The case originated from a show cause notice issued on 15.04.2021, to which the petitioner did not respond, citing constraints caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Subsequently, an Order-in-Original dated 28.07.2022 confirmed a demand based on alleged short declaration of taxable services amounting to ₹51,19,716/-. This resulted in a confirmed service tax liability of ₹7,53,358/- (including applicable cesses), along with an equivalent penalty and an additional penalty of ₹10,000/-.
The petitioner contended that the delay in filing the appeal occurred due to the pandemic and subsequent health complications, as well as his engagement in minor contract work after the pandemic. The appeal was filed only after recovery proceedings were initiated but was rejected due to exceeding the permissible condonable delay under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994.
The respondent Department argued that statutory limitations strictly govern appeals, and any delay beyond the prescribed condonable period cannot be entertained. The Court acknowledged this legal position, noting that ordinarily, delays beyond the statutory limit cannot be condoned, even under writ jurisdiction.
