Society's GST appeal dismissed for filing 230 days late under Section 100 CGST Act 2017

The AAAR dismissed an appeal filed by a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, which provided training and consultancy services to ICLS officers. The appeal was filed on 14.02.2020 against an advance ruling communicated on 28.06.2019, exceeding the mandatory 30-day filing period and the additional 30-day condonable period under Section 100 of CGST Act, 2017. The AAAR held it lacked power to condone delay beyond the prescribed 60-day maximum period, as it is not a court and the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to appellate authority proceedings.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the activity of the Appellant is taxable under the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017.
2. Whether the appeal filed by the Appellant is within the permissible period of limitation.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Taxability of the Appellant's Activities under CGST Act, 2017

The Appellant, Indian Institute of Corporate Affairs (IICA), argued that the advance ruling treating a grant transaction as a service transaction is incorrect. They contended that there is no client-service provider relationship as per the Supreme Court's decision in Apitco Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Hyderabad. The Appellant highlighted the absence of 'consideration' or 'supply' necessary for invoking GST provisions, emphasizing that the contract is executed without profit motive and any unspent amount must be refunded to the donors. They cited the Supreme Court's affirmation in the APITCO case, which held that grants-in-aid used for welfare schemes do not establish a service provider-client relationship.

The Appellant further referenced the case of Madhya Pradesh Consultancy Organisation Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal, where it was held that grants-in-aid for specific activities are not liable for service tax. The Appellant argued that their activities fall under this category as they receive grants for specific charitable activities, and any unspent balance is subject to refund.

The Appellant also contended that their activities do not fall under "in the course or furtherance of business" as defined under Section 2(17)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017. They argued that their activities are charitable, without any profit motive, and the grants received are for specific purposes with no discretion for surplus generation. They cited various Supreme Court judgments to support their claim that receipts for specific charitable purposes cannot be treated as trade receipts.

Issue 2: Limitation Period for Filing the Appeal

The Appellate Authority examined whether the appeal was filed within the permissible period of limitation. According to Section 100 of the CGST Act, 2017, an appeal should be filed within 30 days from the date of communication of the advance ruling order, with a possible extension of another 30 days if sufficient cause is shown. The Appellant received the advance ruling order on 28.06.2019 but filed the appeal on 14.02.2020, beyond the permissible period.

The Appellant argued that they were under the impression that the Appellate Authority was not constituted and cited a letter from the GST Council dated 30.01.2020 confirming the constitution of the Appellate Authority on 03.09.2019. However, the Appellate Authority noted that the appeal was filed during the pre-COVID period, and the Supreme Court's order regarding extension of limitation due to COVID-19 did not apply.

The Appellate Authority referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Singh Enterprises Vs. CCE, Jamshedpur, which held that statutory authorities cannot condone delays beyond the period specified in the statute. The Appellate Authority concluded that it lacked the power to condone the delay beyond the additional 30 days provided by the statute.

Conclusion:

The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on the grounds of time limitation, stating that it did not have the authority to condone the delay beyond the permissible period. Consequently, the merits of the issue regarding the taxability of the Appellant's activities were not discussed. The order emphasized that statutory authorities must adhere strictly to the limitation periods prescribed by the statute.

---