Authority dismisses appeal, condones delay, strict on GST exemption criteria, emphasizes eligibility adherence.

The authority upheld the original ruling and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned as falling within the permissible period. Regarding the exemption from GST for services provided by sub-contractors, the authority strictly interpreted the exemption notification and found the appellant did not qualify. Despite acknowledging the appellant's ineligibility for input tax credit, the authority emphasized adherence to the eligibility criteria in exemption notifications, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

---

---

Issues:
1. Delay in filing the appeal.
2. Exemption from GST for services provided by sub-contractors to the appellant.

Delay in filing the appeal:
The appellant filed the appeal 14 days late, but the authority decided to condone the delay as it fell within the condonable period of 30 days from the due date. The appellant did not provide reasons for the delay, but the authority exercised its power to condone the delay in the interest of justice.

Exemption from GST for services provided by sub-contractors to the appellant:
The appellant engaged sub-contractors for gardening and landscaping work received from government departments. The appellant argued that since their outward supply to government organizations was exempt, the inward supply from sub-contractors should also be exempt. However, the authority interpreted the GST rate exemption notification strictly. It found that the appellant, being a cooperative society and not a specified entity, did not qualify for the exemption under the relevant entries. Despite acknowledging that the appellant would not be eligible for input tax credit on the inward supply, the authority held that this should not influence the sub-contractors' eligibility for exemption. The authority emphasized that exemption notifications must be strictly interpreted based on eligibility criteria, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the authority upheld the original ruling and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant, stating that the services provided by the sub-contractors to the appellant were not eligible for exemption under the specified notifications.

---