Madras High Court
M/S.Vision Holidays vs The Customs Excise And Service Tax on 4 June, 2024
Author: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Bench: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
W.P.No.11898 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.06.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.P.No.11898 of 2024
M/s.Vision Holidays
Rep. by its Managing Partner Mr.S.R.Bhoopathy
No.354-C, Sudheera Complex,
100 Feet Road,
Coimbatore – 641 012. ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Customs Excise and Service Tax
Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench,
Shastri Bhawan Annexe,
1st Floor, 26, Haddows Road,
Chennai – 600 006 (Represented by its Assistant Registrar)
2.The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise,
No.6/7, A.T.D. Street, GST Bhavan,
Race Course Road,
Coimbatore – 641 018. ... Respondents
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11898 of 2024
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for
records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 1st
respondent vide his order in Defect Dairy No.41278/2023 dated
09.02.2023 and quash the same as it is Arbitrary, illegal and in gross
violation of Principles of Natural Justice and further direct the 1 st
respondent to take up the appeal on file and to dispose of the same
on its merits in accordance with law.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Satheesh Murugan
For Respondents : Mr.K.Mohanamurali, Sr. SC
**********
ORDER
An order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate
Tribunal, Chennai rejecting an application by the petitioner for
condonation of delay is challenged in this writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. An appellate order was issued on 23.02.2016. As per Section
86 of the Finance Act, 1994, the appeal should have been filed within
two months from the date of receipt of the order. Consequently, in
this case, the appeal should have been filed on or before 23.05.2016.
The petitioner presented the appeal before the CESTAT on 13.11.2023
along with an application to condone the delay of 2727 days. Since
such application was rejected, the present writ petition was filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
order of CESTAT is liable to be interfered with because the tribunal
disregarded the explanation of the petitioner that the Managing
Partner, Mr.S.R.Bhoopathy, was suffering from chronic disc prolapse
and was under treatment from 2016. In support of the contention
that the expression sufficient cause should be construed liberally, he
places reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in
Tojo Tyre Retread v. CESTAT, Chennai 2015(317) E.L.T. 448 (Mad.) and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the judgment of the single judge of this Court in Kone Elevator India
Pvt. Ltd. v. Secretary Ministry of Finance 2013(32) S.T.R. 262 (Mad.). He
also relied on a judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High
Court in Manish Vorani v. Union of India 2015(316) E.L.T. 575 (Bom.).
4. Mr.K.Mohanamurali, learned senior standing counsel,
accepts notice for the respondents. He points out that the petitioner
failed to show sufficient cause and that the period of delay is 2727
days.
5. The question that arises for consideration is whether a case is
made out to interfere with the impugned order. In the impugned
order, the CESTAT took into consideration the petitioner's pleading
that he was seriously ill between March 2016 and October 2023.
CESTAT also took into account the submission that there was a
lockdown between March 2020 and February 2022 on account of the
Covid-19 pandemic. After adverting to judgments of the Supreme
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Court in Mohan Lal Sharma v. Union of India and another AIR 1981 1346
and Smt.J.Yashoda v. Smt.K.Shobha Rani AIR 2007 SC 1721, the
Supreme Court concluded that the evidence provided by the
petitioner did not qualify a sufficient cause to explain the
considerable delay in filing the appeal.
6. The reasons stated by the petitioner are that he was suffering
from chronic disc prolapse at the L4 – L5 level, i.e., Sciatica. With
regard to the medical certificate produced by the petitioner in that
regard, CESTAT recorded the conclusion that the certificate merely
states that the petitioner was under treatment from 2016 and not that
he was unable to undertake day to day affairs during the said period.
Based on the reasons stated by the petitioner and the evidence
submitted in support thereof, in my view, the conclusion of CESTAT
in this regard cannot be faulted. Consequently, no case is made out
for interference.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. Therefore, W.P.No.11898 of 2024 is dismissed without any
order as to costs.
04.06.2024
rna
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
To
1.The Customs Excise and Service Tax
Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench,
Shastri Bhawan Annexe,
1st Floor, 26, Haddows Road,
Chennai – 600 006 (Represented by its Assistant Registrar)
2.The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise,
No.6/7, A.T.D. Street, GST Bhavan,
Race Course Road,
Coimbatore – 641 018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J
rna
04.06.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
