Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  The GSTN has issued an Advisory dated 21.04.2026 about the introduction of an Offline Tool for the Invoice Management System (IMS)  *  CBIC extends due dates for filing of FORM GSTR 3B  for the month of April 2026 *  Interest cannot be imposed in adjudication order, if not demanded/quantified in show cause notice : Allahabad HC *  Wheelchairs with toileting facility eligible for exemption: CESTAT affirms customs duty exemption to importer *  Industries urge GST council to allow inverted duty refunds on input services *  Tamil Nadu GST dept introduced virtual hearing facility for GST appeals under under section 107 of the TNGST act: detailed guidelines  *  CIC urges authorities to implement GST evasion complaint tracking system *  Even if the assessee opts "NO" for personal hearing in form DRC-06 ,The mandatory requirement under section 75(4) to grant opportunity of hearing cannot be waived:Gujarat High Court  *  Glufosinate imports curbs imposed by govt *  Government extends Re-import period for exported cut & polished diamonds *  CIC flags lack of tracking system for tax evasion complaints,urges GST authorities to improve transparency *  No Custodial Interrogation needed in GST fraud case based on documentary evidence already in Department's Possession : Chattisgarh HC *  Orders under section cannot be sustained if passed without considering the taxpayer's objections and without granting a personal hearing:Gujarat High Court *  Mere cancellation of supplier's registration cannot,by itself,justify denial of ITC or cancellation of the recipient's registration:Bombay High Court *  High Court sets aside GST notice citing factual errors and natural justice violations *  Provisional Bank Attachment under Section. 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory period without Extension order: Bombay HC orders to defreeze accounts *  Post Clearance MRP Alteration by Distributor Does not attract Differential Customs Duty: CESTAT *  DGFT Expands scope of 'Screws' classification under RoDTEP Scheme  *  E-way bills surze to all time high of 140.6 million in March *  GST Exemption Allowed on Pure Labour Services for Standalone Houses: AAR  *  GST Payable Only on Margin in Second-Hand Car Sales, Subject to Strict Conditions and No ITC Claim: AAR *  DGFT rolls out procedure for allocation of calcined coke *  GST portal update : Pre-deposit amount now editable in Appeals *  J&K HC declared TMT scrap a 'Specified Good' eligibile for GST refunds under Support Scheme  *  Pigmy agents are employees of banks; no GST can be levied on commission  paid to them : Karnataka HC *  DGFT Revises HS Code Description for Screws Under RoDTEP *  GST Registration Cancellation Invalid Without Proper Service of Notice: Allahabad High Court. *  Bengaluru CGST | GST Backlog Appeals Deadline Fixed at June 30, 2026 *  No Time Bar on Refund of Service Tax for Services Not Rendered: CESTAT  Remands Indiabulls Case for Unjust Enrichment Check. *  Supreme Court Holds Renewable Energy Incentive Must Benefit Generators, Not Be Adjusted in Tariff
Subject News *   Delhi HC Quashes Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Improperly Served GST SCN *  KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REMANDS GST SHORTFALL MATTER DUE TO ABSENCE OF PERSONAL HEARING   *  CESTAT cancels confiscation and penalties on imported computer cabinet cases: Custom duty restricted to 111 surplus units *  Deposit of tax during search or investigation cannot be treated as 'Voluntary Payment' : Bombay High Court *  Section 76 of the CGST cannot be invoked where the tax has already been duly deposited, even if through another registration of the same entity: Madras High Court *  Sec 74 allows use of material regardless of source; illegality or flaws in section 67 search do not vitiate valid adjudication: HC *  Inter-State transfer of ITC on Amalgamation permissible as given under section 18(3) read with rule 41 of the CGST rules, 2017: Gujarat High Court *  HC: No GST on commisson paid to Pigmy Agents *  IGST refund denial on illegible bill of lading invalid absent chance to furnish docs; merit reconsideration in appeals directed: HC *  ITC is not admissible on GST paid on leasehold rights of land used fpr setting up an air seperation plant: AAAR,Tamil Nadu *  GST: No penalty under Section 74 after voluntary ITC reversal due to non-existent supplier : High Court *  TN AAAR denies GST ITC on Land Lease under Sec. 17(5)(d) for setting up plant and machinery *  GST proceedings quashed as notices sent to old address, despite updated address in registration *  Importer Can’t Be Penalised for Alleged IGCR Procedural Lapses Without Evidence of Departmental Error: CESTAT *  Structured Healthcare Training Not ‘Charitable Activity’, 18% GST Payable: AAR  *  CESTAT As The Appellate Authority For Central Sales Tax Disputes: A Paradigm Shift Under Finance Act, 2023 *   Rs. 25K Cost Imposed On SGST Joint Commissioner for Attaching Bank  Accounts Without Forming Mandatory “Opinion”: Bombay HC *   Ex-Parte GST Order Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Karnataka  High Court Quashes Adjudication and Bank Attachment.  *   Retrospective GST Cancellation Can’t Invalidate Genuine Transactions:  Jaipur Commissioner (Appeals) Quashes Rs. 95,670 ITC Demand. *   GST Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court Allows Appeal  Subject to Rs. 30 Lakh Balance Deposit, Recognises Offline Filing. *  Documentary Nature of Evidence: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 32.66 Crore Fake ITC Fraud Case *  Supreme Court Flags Systemic Bias in Army’s Permanent Commission Process for Women Officers *  Re-Determination of Land Compensation Can Be Based on Appellate Court Awards, Clarifies Scope of S. 28-A: Supreme Court. *  Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Costs On Rent Authority Officer For Acting Beyond Jurisdiction. *  DGGI Meerut | Court Denies Bail to Accused in Claiming Fake ITC And Export Refunds *  Denial of GST Rate Revision Benefit to Contractor Violates Article 14: Rajasthan HC *  GST Registration Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns: Gauhati High Court Directs Restoration on Compliance. *   Supreme Court Quashes FEMA Adjudication Orders, Revives Proceedings at  Show Cause Stage. *   Higher Rank, Harsher Punishment Justified: Supreme Court Restores Dismissal  of Bank Manager in Misappropriation Case. *   Limitation for Export Refund to Be Counted from Foreign Exchange Realisation,  Not From Export Invoices Issuance: CESTAT  

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