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 on time lost due to technical glitch to be excluded for calculating period of limitation

GST Update on time lost due to technical glitch to be excluded for calculating period of limitation
The GST law was introduced with an intention to reduce the complexities of the taxpayers and streamline the tax compliances. Consequently, to develop the easy tax reform, the compliances are now digitised which includes electronic filing of appeal. However, this has also increased the miseries of taxpayers due to frictions/glitches in complying with the requirement of GST Laws. Recently, on similar parameters one case was reported before Allahabad High Court in the case of M/S BRIJ BIHARI SINGH V/S COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX. The decision imparted in this case is subject matter of discussion of our present update.
The petitioner challenged the order related to cancellation of GST registration pertaining to the period 2019-20. However, the appeal was rejected by the appellate authority on the grounds of being time barred. The registration of the petitioner was cancelled vide notice dated 28.02.2019 and the reply of which was submitted by the petitioner as on 12.03.2019. However, due to non appearance of petitioner, ex-parte order was passed dated 09.08.2019. The petitioner filed grievance that he was not able to file any appeal against the order due to malfunctioning/errors in functioning of the GSTN portal. The petitioner furnished evidence in form of screenshots in support of his contentions well. The error was resolved as on 17.09.2021 for which a ticket was also issued and e-mail was also received by the petitioner as on 20.09.2021. Therefore, the appeal was preferred on 20.09.2021. Furthermore, because of the technical glitch, the order dated 09.08.2019 was displayed again on the portal having a different reference number.
The Court observed the facts of the case. It was stated that the GSTN authorities themselves acknowledged the difficulty faced by the assessee ininstituting the appeal against the order dated 28.02.2019 by displaying the order yet again with different reference number. Further, there was evidence of resolving the difficulty on 17.09.2021 i.e. after the expiry of statutory period of limitation and extended period of limitation as per Section 107 of CGST Act, 2017. The Court stated that since the petitioner was disabled from filing of appeal electronically for reasons attributable solely to GSTN for no fault on the part of the petitioner, it is to be assumed that the order was made available to the assessee as on 17.09.2021 and not on earlier. This is because the GSTN authority resolved the glitch as on 17.09.2021 due to which assessee was not able to prefer an appeal against order dated 17.09.2019 before the said date. It was stated that the statutory right of appeal is not illusory remedy. It is an effective remedy within the statue to address the genuine grievances. Therefore, the appeal forum must be freely available to the assessee without any obstruction to access it. Recently, due to technical glitches, the period of limitation of filing of appeal against order dated 17.09.2019 expired which ideally should run from the 17.09.2021 instead. This is because of the fact that no appeal could be filed by the petitioner owing to the technical issues. For the period from 28.02.2019 to 17.09.2021, the period of limitation to file appeal must be suspended. Therefore, the appeal is admitted being within time. The matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to decide the case on merits within a period of 3 months from the date of copy of the order.
The above decision is a favourable decision for the business houses wherein lenient approach is taken as regards filing of appeal beyond the prescribed statutory period due to technical glitches on the GST portal, thereby giving shelter to the aggrieved taxpayer. It is well settled that default on account of technical lapses should not snatch the rights of appeal available to the assessee. It has been held in plethora of cases as well wherein it is held that substantial benefits should not be denied due to technical lapses. To illustrate, in the case of JOSE JOSEPH V/S ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX AND EXCISE, Kerala High Court delivered that rejection of appeal as time barred by Appellate Authority is not justified when the department defaulted in complying with the statutory provisions. It is high time that revenue authorities should implement these decisions rather than turning blind eye and depriving the assessees oftheir substantive rights resulting into sheer wastage of time and increasing the disputes.
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