2024 (3) TMI 742 - AAAR - GST

GST Authority Condones 21-Day Appeal Delay Under Section 100(2) for Vehicle Seat Cover Classification

In Re: M/s. Lions Seat Cushions Private Limited,

The AAAR-TN condoned a 21-day delay in filing an appeal, finding sufficient cause under Section 100(2) of CGST Act, 2017. The case involved classification ... Condonation of delay in filing appeal - sufficient cause for delay or not - Classification of goods - Bike and Scooter seat cover - to be classified under CTH 87089900 or not - taxable at GST rate of 28% or not - HELD THAT:- The appellant has presented sufficient cause that prevented them from filing the appeal within the normal period. Therefore, the delay of 21 days beyond the normal time limit in filing the appeal is condonable as provided under the proviso to Section 100(2) of CGST Act, 2017. Further it is found that this authority is empowered vide Section 101(1) of the CGST/TNGST Acts, 2017 to pass such orders as deemed fit. Issues involved:The judgment involves the condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 100(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, and the classification and applicable rate of tax on seat covers under the GST Act.Condonation of Delay:The appellant filed an appeal beyond the prescribed time limit of 30 days from the passing of the initial order. The appellant cited the medical condition of the Managing Director, who was advised rest for three weeks due to chest pain, as the reason for the delay. The appellate authority considered the medical certificates and found that the delay of 21 days was condonable as per the proviso to Section 100(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. The authority passed an order condoning the delay and decided to consider the appeal on its merits.Classification and Tax Rate on Seat Covers:The appellant, a manufacturer of seat covers for two-wheelers, bikes, and scooters, sought an advance ruling on the correct GST rate for seat covers. The Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) classified the seat covers under CTH 87149990, attracting GST at 28%. The appellant disagreed, arguing that the seat covers should be classified under a specific entry 94019900, attracting a lower tax rate of 18%. The appellant filed an appeal against the AAR's ruling, challenging the classification and tax rate applied to the seat covers. The appellate authority decided to first address the condonation of delay issue before discussing the merits of the case.Conclusion:The appellate authority, after considering the medical condition of the appellant's Managing Director and the documents provided, condoned the delay of 21 days in filing the appeal. The authority found the delay to be condonable under the relevant provisions of the CGST Act, 2017. As a result, the appeal was accepted for consideration on its merits regarding the classification and applicable tax rate on the seat covers manufactured by the appellant.