Failure to File Application within time for Continuation of Appeal even after Death of Proprietor: CESTAT Dismisses Appeal [Read Order]

The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dismissed the appeal as the asseessee failed to file application for continuation of appeal before the tribunal even after death of the proprietor. The court found that no request has been made for condoning this delay, rather there is no mention of the delay at all.

M/s. Sambathe Carriers, a proprietary concern filed the appeal where the proprietor of which passed away on June 20, 2021.

Thereafter, the wife of the deceased proprietor applied for GST Registration on August 19, 2021 on the ground of the Death of the deceased proprietor. GST registration came to be granted to the wife of the appellant on August 20, 2021.

Take Your SME to the Next Level with IPO Insights - Click here to Register

It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the proprietor had died and a photocopy of the Death Certificate was furnished. On that date, therefore, the Tribunal was inclined to close the appeals, but on the request of the Counsel for Respondent-Revenue, time was granted. Thereafter, on November 13, 2024 the Respondent ultimately filed a submission purporting to be a miscellaneous application seeking that the proceedings be continued in accordance with that Rule as the proprietary concern continues.

Read More: Top Stories Delayed Trial & Prolonged Custody of Accused of PMLA Offence: Supreme Court Grants Bail

A two member bench of P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Member (Technical) viewed that Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 requires that such an application be made within a period of 60 days of the occurrence of the event, which in the present case is the death of the proprietor. The present purported application has been filed more than three years after the death of the proprietor. Even if the date of granting GST Registration to the wife of the appellant is considered, it is still a case of inordinate delay. It is true that the second proviso to Rule 22 ibid confers the power upon us to  condone a delay in the filing of the application, for sufficient cause.

The bench found that no request has been made for condoning this delay, rather there is no mention of the delay at all. In any case, as noted above, the fact of the death of the proprietor was not beyond the knowledge of the respondent-department. The respondents have even been granted Registration under the GST laws about two months after the death of the proprietor. Therefore, in our opinion, in these circumstances, no sufficient cause exists to condone the delay in filing the application, even if an appropriate request for condoning the delay was made.

Take Your SME to the Next Level with IPO Insights - Click here to Register

While rejecting the application, the bench held that in terms of Rule 22 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, the captioned Appeals stand abated. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. 

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates