Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

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