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 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