Facts of the Case

The petitioner, K. Murugan, an ex-serviceman executing works contracts for the Public Works Department, was registered under Service Tax during the VAT regime and was assessed for service tax for 2013-14 to 2015. He claimed he was never served a copy of the assessment order dated 16.12.2021 and learned of it only on 02.06.2023, when his bank account was frozen for recovery. He then filed a delayed appeal along with a condone-delay petition before the first respondent, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Madurai. The department produced an acknowledgment showing the order had in fact been delivered — received by the petitioner's wife — but the petitioner maintained there had been no communication between them about it, leaving him unable to file the appeal in time. This delay was ultimately 455 days.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) should be directed to condone a 455-day delay and take the petitioner's appeal on file, despite service of the assessment order on a family member.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The order-in-original was never actually communicated to him personally, and there was no discussion with his wife about the document she had received, so he had genuinely remained unaware of the assessment until his account was frozen.
  • Relied on the Gujarat High Court's decision in M/s. Manjeet Cotton Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of State Tax, where a similar delay was condoned to preserve the assessee's right to be heard on appeal, keeping the larger issue open.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The respondents pointed to a huge delay of 455 days and produced the acknowledgment proving that the assessment order had in fact been served, received by the petitioner's wife.

Court Order / Findings

  • Considering the facts and following the Gujarat High Court's approach in Manjeet Cotton, the Court allowed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to file his appeal within four weeks, and the respondents to take it on file and consider it on merits.
  • As a condition for condoning the delay, the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the respondents; the respondents were directed to decide the appeal within four months thereafter.
  • The Court did not examine the underlying service tax assessment on its merits — only the procedural question of admitting the delayed appeal was decided.

Important Clarification

This case concerns a service tax assessment from the pre-GST period (2013-14 to 2015) and Central Excise (Appeals) machinery, not the GST Act — the case caption's reference to "Central GST and Excise" reflects only the department's current name after the 2017 reorganisation. It nonetheless offers a useful template for any indirect-tax appellant: courts are often willing to condone substantial delay in filing an appeal, on a modest cost condition, where there is a plausible dispute about effective service of the original order.

Sections Involved

  • Finance Act, 1994 — service tax assessment and appeal provisions
  • Article 226, Constitution of India, 1950

Decision – In Favour of

Decided in favour of the petitioner on the procedural question; the delay was condoned on payment of Rs. 5,000/-, and the appeal was ordered to be considered on merits by the Appellate Authority. No GST-law question was involved.

Case Details

  • Court: Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
  • Case No.: W.P.(MD) No. 16111 of 2023 and W.M.P.(MD) No. 13499 of 2023
  • Coram: Hon'ble Mrs Justice S. Srimathy
  • Date of Order: 21 August 2023

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.