Commissioner ,Central Goods And Service Tax And Central Excise vs. Dharampal Satyapal LTD

Held

The Court held that sufficient cause was not made out for condoning the delay of 105 days. The Court noted that while the jurisdictional Commissioner received the order on 22.09.2017, the explanation that the matter was examined until 11.02.2018 (approximately five months) lacked a reasonable explanation. The Court found no sufficient cause for the inaction during this prolonged period. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd., the Court observed that delay cannot be condoned when authorities act in a casual manner. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed as devoid of merit. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself, as it was not entertained due to the dismissed delay condonation application.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise filed an application seeking condonation of a 105-day delay in filing an appeal against an order dated 13.07.2018. The order was first received at the CGST, Siliguri Commissionerate on 14.08.2017, then sent to CGST Shillong Commissionerate on 31.08.2017, and finally received by the jurisdictional CGST & Central Excise, Guwahati on 22.09.2017. The petitioner explained that after receiving the order, it was examined at different levels, causing the delay. The period from 22.09.2017 to 11.02.2018 was stated as being for examination by Central Excise authorities.

Key Issues

1. Whether sufficient cause has been made out for condoning the delay of 105 days in filing the appeal, as required by Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963? The petitioner argued that the delay was occasioned by the time taken for examination of the impugned order at various levels within the Central Excise authorities after its receipt. They contended that the order was communicated to different authorities before reaching the one required to take note of it, and subsequent internal examination caused the delay. The respondent argued that there was no proper explanation for the delay, particularly for the period between 22.09.2017 and 11.02.2018, and that the authorities had acted in a casual manner, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd.