Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 3993
High Court of Judicature at Madras
R. SUDHAKAR & R. KARUPPIAH, JJ.
S. Xavier
Versus
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal & Another
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3193 of 2014 & M.P.No. 1 of 2014
Decided on: 07-11-2014
For the Appellant:R. Hemalatha, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of showing diligence and bona fides in pursuing a matter, especially when seeking condonation of delay.
Headnote:
Condonation of Delay - Customs, Excise and Service Tax - 2013 (5) CTC 547 - The court declined to condone the delay in filing the appeal, citing lack of diligence and bona fides on the part of the appellant. The court emphasized the need for a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented approach while dealing with applications for condonation of delay, but also highlighted the importance of showing diligence and bona fides in pursuing the matter. The court's decision was influenced by the principles enunciated in the 2013 (5) CTC 547 case.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant failed to appear before the Tribunal, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The appellant sought condonation of delay based on medical reasons, but the Tribunal dismissed the petition. The appellant appealed the decision, arguing that the delay should be condoned due to medical reasons.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant and their representatives did not appear before the Tribunal despite being given two adjournments. The court emphasized the need for diligence and seriousness in pursuing the matter, and declined to condone the delay based on the vague medical certificate and lack of diligence shown by the appellant.
Issues: The issues revolved around the Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal, the appellant's request for condonation of delay based on medical reasons, and the court's consideration of the medical certificate and the appellant's diligence in pursuing the matter.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of diligence and bona fides on the part of the appellant, as well as the principles enunciated in the 2013 (5) CTC 547 case, emphasizing the need for a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented approach while dealing with applications for condonation of delay.
Final Decision: The court confirmed the order of the Tribunal and dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, citing lack of diligence and bona fides on the part of the appellant. No costs were awarded.
R. Sudhakar, J.
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal declining to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
2. The appellant herein had failed to appear before the Tribunal either in person or through authorised representative, namely, V.Jayapalan, Advocate, Trichy and Mr.M.Masilamani, MA, IRS, Tax Consultant, who have filed the appeal on behalf of the present appellant along with an application for condonation of delay. On two occasions, the matter was listed before the Tribunal for appearance of the appellant or the authorised representative and none appeared to prosecute the matter. The Tribunal has no other option except to dismiss the case. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the condone delay application as well as the main appeal. As against the said order, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed raising the following substantial questions of law:
“a. Whether the first respondent – Tribunal was right in law in having completely ignored the medical certificate filed in support of the delay condonation petition and dismissed the appeal solely on the ground that none appeared for the appellant before it?
b. Whether the action of the 1st Respondent in having rejected the condonation of delay application filed by the appellant is perverse and arbitrary given the fact that the appellant had been mulcted with huge liability of service tax and penalty without being afforded a chance to contest the matter on merits?
3. In the grounds of appeal, it is stated that the Tribunal should not adopt such a pedantic approach in matters of condonation of delay. It is also stated that the technicalities should not stand in the way of substantial justice on merits and the Apex Court in number of cases held that the delay on day-to-day basis need not be explained. It is further stated that when the delay is pitted against merits of any matter, the delay has to be condoned.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that since the appellant was suffering from ailment, he was not in a position to appear before the Tribunal to prosecute the matter. The medical certificate issued by the doctor in this regard was also enclosed along with the condone delay petition. But the Tribunal ignored the medical certificate and dismissed the petition. In support of her plea, she relied on the decision of this Court dated 18.6.2014 in C.M.A.No.1587 of 2014, wherein, this Court condoned the delay on payment of cost.
5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the materials placed before this Court.
6. We find no reason as to why the appellant or the advocate or the tax consultant did not appear on two occasions when the matter was listed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal had no other option except to dismiss the case for non-prosecution, as no one turned up despite being given two adjournments. The Tribunal is already loaded with large number of cases and if such conduct is encouraged, it only leads to clogging the wheels of justice. There are so many other litigants who are waiting for hearing of their cases with diligence. In the present case, the appellant is not serious in pursing the matter either by himself or through the consultant or through advocate. The Appellate Court is not a Court of remedy for lethargy and laid back attitude of the party. It has become very common in filing appeals along with an application seeking condonation of delay by stating trivial reasons. If Courts are liberal in granting such relief, it will lead to multiplicity of proceedings and waste of valuable judicial time.
7. In this regard, we are inclined to consider the issue in the light of the decision reported in 2013 (5) CTC 547 (Esha Bhattacharjee V. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur, Nafar Academy and others), where the Apex Court enunciated the following guidelines:
"15. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can be
