Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

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