Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST Update No 296 on time period to file appeal starts from date of uploading the order

GST Update No 296 on time period to file appeal starts from date of uploading the order
The issue regarding filing of appeal within prescribed time period is exposed to litigations since digitization introduced in GST regime. In the erstwhile indirect tax regime, the period of limitation started from the date of receipt of certified copy of order but in the GST regime, the order is deemed to have been received by the assessee on the date on which it is being uploaded on the GST portal. However, the revenue authorities have not been accustomed to the digitization of appeal mechanism and often dispute the appeals on the grounds of limitation such as starting date to be treated as date on which order was physically delivered or e-mail sent. Resultantly, assessee has to knock the doors of courts to seek relief. Recently, one more case was reported before Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of NAVYA FOODS (P) LTD. V/S SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAX wherein the appeal was rejected as time barred. The decision imparted in this case is subject matter of discussion of our present update.
The petitioner filed Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is a private limited company engaged in manufacture of jams, fruit jellies etc. and is registered under CGST Act, 2017. It was noticed upon verification that the GSTR-3B filed during the FY 2018-19 were filed beyond the due date and therefore, interest is to be paid on delayed payment under CGST/SGST/IGST. Therefore, interest along with penalty was demanded. A show cause notice in this respect was issued as on 25.04.2019 and thereafter an assessment order was passed dated 15.11.2019 confirming the levy of interest and penalty which was higher than proposed in show cause notice. It was observed that the order was served physically to the assessee on 25.11.2019.
The petitioner filed an appeal which was rejected on 30.07.2021 on the groundthat it was filed beyond the period of limitation. The counsel of petitioner submitted that in accordance with Rule 142 of CGST Rules, 2017, summary of the order issued under Section 73 shall be uploaded electronically specifying the amount demanded from the assessee. Accordingly, the summary order was uploaded on 18.11.2021 and hence, the period of limitation shall be reckoned from that date. Reliance in this respect was placed on decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of GUJARAT STATE PETRONET LIMITED V/S UNION OF INDIA.
The counsel of respondent opposed the submissions of petitioner and argued that the reason of rejection is not lack of material instead ground of limitation and hence, the argument of petitioner that no appeal could be filed cannot be accepted. However, it was further submitted that in view of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court extending the period of limitation, it is on the discretion of Court to pass appropriate orders.
The Court referred to the provisions of CGST Act and CGST Rules, 2017. It was crystal clear that the appeal is required to be filed in an electronic mode or any other prescribe mode as notified by way of notification. However, any other mode has not been prescribed till date. Therefore, the arguments of petitioner that time period for filing appeal would start only when the order is uploaded in GST portal cannot be side-lined. Reference was drawn to decision of Gujarat High Court and suo-moto order of Supreme Court of extension of period of limitation. It was further stated that the order was sent by e-mail to the petitioner on 25.11.2019 and period of three months’ time would expire on 24.2.2020 and another one month from there would be on 24.3.2020. Therefore, it was stated that the appeal filed by petitioner is within time if the extension order of Supreme Court is made applicable. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and case is remanded back for adjudicating the dispute on merits as per law.
The above decision affirms that the period of limitation shall commence when the order is uploaded on the GST portal. Furthermore, Section 169 of CGST Act, 2017 recognises communication by e-mail on the registration application of the taxpayer and service of order on common portal as valid methods of service of notice to the taxpayer. Reference can be drawnto the decision of Kerala High Court in the case of M/S PEE BEE ENTERPRISES V/S ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER wherein it was affirmed that making order available on the common portal or mailing the order to the registered mail id of the taxpayer is proper service of order to the taxpayer. We have even discussed the same in GST updates number 124/2020-21 dated 27.8.2020. Nevertheless, there are various issues in the practical life wherein the taxpayers create a separate mailing ID for the purpose of GST registration and they fail to check the same on regular basis. Consequently, the taxpayers miss taking actions against the notices and orders mailed to them. Therefore, it is high time that the taxpayers realise that they should regularly check their e-mails and GST portal to keep track record of any notices/orders otherwise they will have to fight the battle of litigation to seek relief.
Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com