Court: GSTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2018-11-20
During the course of hearing, Ld. Advocate Ms. K. Nancy appearing for the appellant/applicant submitted that although their appeal was allowed by the first appellate authority, the consequential reliefs could not be availed by them owing to clerical error in the above Order. The appellant was under the bona fide belief that the corrigendum as sought for by them would be issued subsequently by the authorities below, for which reason they had not filed any appeal before the Tribunal at that stage; that the lower authorities sent a communication rejecting the issuance of corrigendum on 28.02.2018 which was received by the appellant only on 10.03.2018. Thereafter, the appellants filed the present appeal before the Tribunal on 20.06.2018 and hence the delay of 302 days. She pleaded that the delay was neither deliberate nor wanton but only due to the above bona fide reasons.
Court: GSTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2018-11-20
Ld. Counsel Shri M.N.Bharathi submits that the appeal ought to have been filed on or before 03.04.2018; that the Managing Partner of the appellant company had fallen ill during the material period. He subsequently passed away and hence could not file the appeal in time. He submits that the appellants have good case on merits to succeed. The delay is neither deliberate nor wanton. The appellant being a small business entity, if delay is not condoned, he would be put to irreparable financial hardship.
Court: GSTAT Hyderabad Date of Order: 2018-11-19
When this matter was called, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that an identical matter in respect of same appellant in Appeal No. E/31218/2018 is pending before the Division Bench and therefore this appeal may be tagged along with the same and may be decided by the Division Bench.
Court: GSTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2018-11-19
The application does not re veal any ground justifying the urgency for which stay is required to be granted and the appeal memo indicates that imposition of simultaneous penalty und er Section 76 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, though permissible for the period under dispute between April , 2006 and 09/05/2008 , was not confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for which appeal has been filed . E ven in the application for stay , no prayer is made to this Tribunal for grant of stay of the operation of the order of Commissioner (Appeals -III) GST & CX , Mumbai passed on 09/03/2018, though it is listed as such.
Court: GSTAT Delhi Date of Order: 2018-11-14
Order of Hon’ble High Court Madhya Pradesh dated 20.01.2014 has been forwarded through the Commissioner to be placed before this Tribunal vide their letter as was received in the Tribunal on 26.10.2018. Perusal thereof shows that the Order of this Tribunal dated 11.11.2013 vide which the Appeal in hand was dismissed for want of the presence of the appellant has been set aside and the matter had been remanded to this Tribunal for fresh decision. After receiving the said letter, notice to the appellant has been issued on 05.11.2018 however neither any service report is on record nor appellant is present. Matter stands adjourned to 07.01.2019. Fresh notice to be issued to appellant for said date.
Court: GSTAT Hyderabad Date of Order: 2018-11-13
Both sides submit that the issue may be covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Macro Marvel Projects Limited and A.S. Sikarwar and others. On casual perusal of the orders, we find that the issue can be decided in a short time, accordingly application for out of turn hearing of the appeals filed by Revenue are allowed and Registry is directed to list the appeal for disposal on 19.12.2018.
Court: GSTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2018-11-13
Ld. Counsel Ms. Mary Josy appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant is a municipality, a State Governmental Authority inter alia, engaged in providing services covered under the categories of “Renting of Immovable Property Service” and “Sale of Space or Time for Advertisement Service”. She submits that the impugned order dt. 26.02.2016 was served on the appellant on 04.03.2016. The appeal is ought to have been filed before the Tribunal on or before 04.06.2016, however the appeal was filed on 02.07.2018. She submits that major portion of the demand to the tune of Rs.1,14,66,895/- for the period 2010-11 to 2013-14 has been dropped by the Commissioner in the impugned order against which Department has also preferred Appeal ST/41354/2016, which is pending before Tribunal. She submits that the present appeal has been filed against confirmation of balance demand to the tune of Rs.75,70,794/- for the very same period; that the appellant did not collect service tax on any receipt during the period of dispute.; that appellant is in severe financial crisis for the last few years and has not been able to mobilize funds to pay the predeposit; that they defaulted payment of electricity charges to TNEB; that even salary could not be paid to their employees for the last three months. Apart from the financial crisis, there has been frequent change of competent authority in the Municipality for the last two years which also attributed administrative delay in filing the appeal. The delay is neither wanton nor intentional but due to administrative exigencies as well as severe financial crisis. She therefore prayed that considering the plea of appellant, delay may be condoned as they have good case on merits to succeed.
Court: GSTAT Hyderabad Date of Order: 2018-11-12
This application is filed for condonation of delay of 01 day in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.
Court: GSTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2018-11-12
MAs are filed by appellant for condonation of delay of 15 days each in filing the appeals.
Date of Order:
Heard on appeal and perused order dated 11.05.2018 of Hon’ble SupremeCourt in (Diary No.14095/2018). Impugned order shall remain stayed till the disposal of this appeal, in terms of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court .