Court: GSTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2018-07-17
The ld. counsel Shri M.N. Bharathi appearing for the appellant submitted that the consultant who was handling the matter fell ill and was advised bed rest for a period of 60 days. In support of his argument, he has produced the medical certificate.
Court: GSTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2018-07-13
Ld. Consultant Shri M. Ponnuswamy, submits that in these cases early hearing is being sought for the reason that appellant is a small time service provider of DTH services in Madurai; Initially four show cause notices were issued for the periods 1.10.2007 to 31.3.2012, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 inter alia demanding tax liability of Rs.35 lakhs. However, recurrent show cause notices have been continued to be issued subsequent to that also. For these reasons, they are seeking early hearing in the matter. Ld. consultant also submits that related Appeal Nos. ST/42025/2015 & ST/41198/2016 concerning the same issue may also be tagged with the present appeals.
Court: GSTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2018-07-11
On behalf of the appellant, the Ld. Counsel, Shri S. Ramachandran, submitted that owing to sudden illness the authorized signatory of the appellant was on continuous leave for two weeks and was unable to attend office and give instructions to the consultant regarding preparation and filing of appeal. He submitted that the delay is neither wilful nor wanton but only due to the above reasons.
Court: GSTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2018-07-10
Ld.Counsel Shri V.S. Manoj appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appeal ought to have been filed on or before 31.03.2017. However, the appeal could not be filed in time since the person who was handling the service tax matters, left the organization w.e.f. 01.02.2017 and the receipt of the Order-in- Original was not brought to the notice of the management. In the meantime, proceedings were also initiated against the appellants under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Their bankers had also sought for regularisation of accounts and closure of secured overdraft and appellant’s account was classified as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) by the bank. For these reasons, appellant was totally involved in restructuring the business. He submits that they have a good case on merits. As against the total demand of Rs.1,07,04,337/-, an amount of Rs.82,45,403/- was already paid by them and appropriated in the order. For these reasons of financial stress, he prayed that the delay may be condoned.
Court: GSTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2018-07-09
On behalf of the appellant, the Ld. Counsel, Shri S. Murugappan submitted that appellant’s unit is defunct and are not in a position to make the payment of pre-deposit. Somehow they could generate funds and made the mandatory pre-deposit, which resultedt in delay of 251 days in filing the present appeal. He further submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor wantaon and pleaded that the delay may be condoned.
Court: GSTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2018-07-02
The above application for condonation of delay is filed by the Revenue seeking to condone the delay of 13 days in preferring the appeal
Court: GSTAT Allahabad Date of Order: 2018-06-29
The present Miscellaneous Application filed by the appellant for Early Hearing, we find that the issue is recurring in nature and accordingly, we allow the Miscellaneous Application for Early Hearing and fix the same for final disposal on 07/08/2018.
Court: GSTAT Delhi Date of Order: 2018-06-29
Application for early hearing in the matter of both the appeals have been filed since the Revenue stakes involved in the matter are very high. In respect of Appeal No. ST/52332/2016 Revenue stake is over Rs. 54 Crores, and in respect of Appeal No. ST/52815/2016, the Revenue stakes are over Rs 262 Crores. Further it has been submitted that issues are recurring
Court: GSTAT Delhi Date of Order: 2018-06-28
The COD application has been filed for Condonation of delay. The appeal against the order in appeal dated 08.05.2014 stands filed before the Tribunal on 28.03.2018. It has been submitted that the delay was on account of the fact that the proprietor of the appellant expired on 08.11.2016 and the family members became aware of the order impugned only when the recovery notice was served on them on 07.03.2018.
Court: GSTAT Delhi Date of Order: 2018-06-28
For the reasons mentioned in the COD application we condoned delay of 2 months and 10 days. List the appeal in due course.