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 whether AAAR empowered to condone delay beyond statutory time period? 130/2020-21

GST update on whether AAAR empowered to condone delay beyond statutory time period? 130/2020-21
It is often observed that the appeal is not heard on merits for the sole reason that it was filed beyond the statutory time period prescribed in the Statue. If we talk of erstwhile indirect taxation regime, it was settled law that the appeal was required to be filed within the stipulated time period of 60 days/2months with one month condonation allowed by the Commissioner Appeals in exceptional cases. It was held that since the time period along with condonation period is explicitly stated in the Statue, the Commissioner Appeals was not empowered to condone delay beyond the stipulated period. However, in case of appeals before Tribunals, the power to condone delay was not limited and the length of delay does not matter if there were genuine reasons for not filing appeal within the stipulated time period. In GST era, the concept of advance rulings and filing of appeals before the Appellate Authority for Advance Rulings (AAAR) is new and so is the issue regarding the power to condone delay for appeal filed beyond the stipulated time period. This issue was recently dealt with in the case of THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (GST AAAR KARNATAKA) [ORDER NO. KAR/AAAR-15/12019-20 DATED 03/03/2020], wherein the delay of one day beyond the prescribed period was not condoned. The decision pronounced is the subject matter of discussion of the present update.
The AAAR held that on a plain reading of the provisions of Section 100 of the said Act, it is apparent that the same mandates that an appeal should be filed within 30 days from the date of communication of the advance ruling order that is sought to be challenged. Moreover, it was stated that the Appellate Authority being a creature of the statue is empowered to condone delay only to the extent of 30 days after the expiry of the initial period for filing appeal, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the initial period of 30 days. In other words, the total limitation period during which an appeal can be preferred before this Authority is 60 days from the date of communication of the advance ruling order, on showing sufficient cause.
The AAAR concluded that it is not empowered to condone the delay beyond 60 days because the language of proviso to Section 100 of the CGST Act uses the words ‘not exceeding thirty days’ thereby indicating that this Appellate Authority could not entertain appeal beyond the extended period given under the proviso. If it condoned the delay beyond 30 days, it would render the phrase ‘not exceeding thirty days’ wholly otiose which would not be in accordance with the principles of interpretation.
 
Reliance was also placed on decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of SINGH ENTERPRISES VS CCE reported as (2008) 3 SCC 70 rendered in terms of Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which also provided specific time limit for filing appeal before the Commissioner Appeals and the specific time period of condonation. Similar decisions were given by the Supreme Court in case of CONSOLIDATED ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES VS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS – (2008) 7 SCC 169 and COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE VS HONGO INDIA (P) LTD – (2009) 5 SCC 791wherein it was pronounced that condonation of delay beyond specified time limit is not possible.
 
This is not the only decision wherein it was held that the AAAR cannot condone the delay beyond the prescribed period and rather similar decision was rendered in case of M/S DURGA PROJECTS & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD VS KARNATAKA AAAR  wherein it was held that AAAR could entertain the appeal beyond the extended period under the proviso to section 100 of CGST Act, 2017 as it would render the phrase “not exceeding thirty days” insignificant. Hence, the situation is similar to the erstwhile regime wherein there was strict view as regards the period of condonation by the Commissioner Appeals for the reason that appellate authority is creature of Statue and cannot go beyond what has been empowered by the Act. Hence, it is high time that the assessee realizes the importance of challenging the AAR orders within the prescribed time limit otherwise it may lead to situation of “no remedy” to them, particularly when there are contrary views on the issue.
This is solely for educational purpose. 
 
You can reach us at www.capradeepjain.com , at our facebook page on https://www.facebook.com/GSTTODAYBYPRADEEPJAIN/  as well as follow us on twitter at https://www.twitter.com/@capradeepjain21  and u may also follow us on Linkedin https://www.linkedin.com/in/ca-pradeep-jain-b6a31a16
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