SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

This matter comes before me pursuant to the appeal of Respondent Mooney, Inc., of a final determination issued by the South Carolina Department of Revenue (Department) in which the Department assessed fines against Respondent and revoked its beer and wine permit and sale and consumption ("mini-bottle") license. After timely notice to the parties, a hearing was conducted on September 27, 2002, at the Administrative Law Judge Division, Columbia, South Carolina. At the commencement of the hearing, counsel for Petitioner moved to dismiss Respondent's appeal because it was untimely filed.

S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-460 (Supp. 2001) provides that a taxpayer may seek relief from the Department's determination by requesting a contested case hearing before the Administrative Law Judge Division within thirty days after the date the determination was sent by first class mail or delivered to the taxpayer. In addition, S.C. Code Ann. §§ 12-60-1310 and -1320 (Supp. 2001), provide that a person who has been notified of the Department's determination to revoke or suspend any license issued by the Department must appeal that determination within thirty days after the date the Department's determination was sent to that person by first class mail. In the instant case, Respondent received the Department's final agency decision, in which the Department revoked its permit and license and assessed certain penalties against it, on June 17, 2002. Respondent did not file its request for a contested case hearing until or after August 1, 2002. ⁽¹⁾

It is well-established that a court does not have the authority to extend the time for taking an appeal from a decision of an administrative agency. E.g., Mears v. Mears, 287 S.C. 168, 337 S.E.2d 206 (1985); Burnette v. S.C. State Highway Dep't, 252 S.C. 568, 167 S.E.2d 571 (1969) (addressing an appeal from the Board of Condemnation). This tribunal recognizes the harsh result of this decision but is constrained by the rules of this tribunal and legal precedent in this State. See Gibbes v, Beckett, 84 S.E. 534 (1915) ("The law requiring appeals to be taken within a fixed time may sometimes produce hardship, but it is important to the administration of justice that there be no uncertainty. There will be few, if any, cases of hardship if the time allowed is utilized without dependence on quick work at the end of the period. However that may be, the court has no power to extend the time fixed by law"). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's motion is granted and this matter is DISMISSED;

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

________________________________

C. DUKES SCOTT

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

September 30, 2002

Columbia, South Carolina

1. Respondent sent his request for a contested case hearing before the Division and the requisite filing fee to the Department, not the Division. The Department subsequently forwarded Respondent's request to the Division, whereupon it was filed.