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 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