1. Appeals against decisions of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal filed with substantial delays. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(SC) 1213
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Indira Banerjee, Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.
Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Kolkata - Appellants
Vs.
S K Samanta and Co Pvt Ltd. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No of 2021 (D No 20008 of 2020) WITH Civil Appeal No of 2021 (D No 19601 of 2020) Civil Appeal No of 2021 (D No 20017 of 2020)
Decided On : 28-11-2021
Important Points
The Supreme Court refused to condone gross delays in filing appeals by the Revenue, ruling that the Union of India cannot claim misapprehension regarding the correct forum. It emphasized that fiscal certainty for assessees requires the Revenue to pursue available legal remedies with alacrity.
Subject
Taxation - Central Excise
Headnote
(A) Central Excise Act, 1944 - Delays in filing appeals - The Revenue's appeals were filed after significant unexplained delays of 668 days and 727 days - The court held that the competent authorities must pursue remedies promptly to maintain fiscal certainty. (Paras 3, 5)
(B) Administrative Law - Access to justice - The court refused to condone the unnecessary delay, stating that certainty in fiscal matters is essential for both the Revenue and the assessee. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
Appeals filed by the Revenue against the decisions of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, which were filed with a combined total delay of 668 and 727 days.
Findings of Court:
The court dismissed the appeals due to delay, emphasizing the importance of prompt action in fiscal matters.
Issues: Whether the appeals could be entertained given the substantial delay in filing.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that delays in accessing remedies must be justified, highlighting that the Revenue, with competent legal advice, should avoid misapprehensions regarding the forum for appeals.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
(B) Administrative Law - Access to justice - The court refused to condone the unnecessary delay, stating that certainty in fiscal matters is essential for both the Revenue and the assessee. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
Appeals filed by the Revenue against the decisions of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, which were filed with a combined total delay of 668 and 727 days.
Findings of Court:
The court dismissed the appeals due to delay, emphasizing the importance of prompt action in fiscal matters.
Issues: Whether the appeals could be entertained given the substantial delay in filing.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that delays in accessing remedies must be justified, highlighting that the Revenue, with competent legal advice, should avoid misapprehensions regarding the forum for appeals.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG Mr. Balbir Singh, ASG Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildyal, Adv Mr. Anirudh Bakhru Adv Mr. Shyam Gopal, Adv. Mr. B.V. Balram Das, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR
For the Respondents: Ms. Shruti Agarwal, AOR
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG Mr. Balbir Singh, ASG Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildyal, Adv Mr. Anirudh Bakhru Adv Mr. Shyam Gopal, Adv. Mr. B.V. Balram Das, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR
For the Respondents: Ms. Shruti Agarwal, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Union of India cannot claim mis-apprehension regarding jurisdiction given available legal advice; certainty in fiscal matters is essential for the assessee. (Para 3 )
3. Gross and unexplained delay in accessing legal remedies, where jurisdiction is clear, justifies refusal to condone delay to ensure certainty in fiscal matters. (Para 3 )
4. Appeals dismissed on the ground of delay. (Para 5 )
5. Can the Union of India seek condonation of gross delay based on a mis-apprehension of the correct forum for appeal?
No. The court held that the Union of India, possessing competent legal advice, cannot claim mis-apprehension regarding jurisdiction when the nature of the controversy clearly indicates the maintainable court. (Para 3 )
6. How does the court balance the interests of the Revenue with those of the assessee regarding delays in litigation?
Certainty in fiscal matters is as important to the assessee as the interests of the Revenue; therefore, the Revenue must show alacrity in pursuing available legal remedies. (Para 3 )
7. Does a dismissal of an appeal on the ground of delay constitute a ruling on the underlying legal issues?
No. When appeals are not entertained due to delay, the court does not enquire into or decide the substantive issues of law addressed in the appeals. (Para 4 )
ORDER :
1. These appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the decisions of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 19 September 2018, 17 July 2018 and 19 September 2018 with a delay of 668 days, 727 days and 668 days, respectively.
2 We have heard Mr Sanjay Jain and Mr Balbir Singh, learned Additional Solicitors General, in support of the appeals. It has been submitted that the delay occurred on account of the fact that the appeals were mistakenly filed before the Calcutta High Court.
3. Even if the period of time which was spent in pursuing the appeals before the High Court is excluded, there is still a substantial and unexplained delay. Even otherwise, we are of the view that the Union of India, which has competent legal advice at its command, cannot, particularly in the facts of the present case, be heard to contend that they were under a mis-apprehension that the appeals would lie before the High Court. The nature of the controversy involved in the appeals leaves no manner of doubt, that the appeals were maintainable before this Court and this Court alone. Hence, we are not inclined to condone such a gross delay on the part of the Revenue in accessing its remedies before the court. In a matter such as the present, certainty in fiscal matters is of importance to the assessee just as the interests of the Revenue have to be duly protected. The concerns of the Revenue have to be duly met by showing alacrity in pursuing remedies which are available in law.
4. Since the appeals are not being entertained on the ground of delay, we expressly clarify that we have not enquired into the issues of law which have been addressed in the present appeals.
5. The appeals are accordingly dismissed on the ground of delay.
