2024 (3) TMI 776 - AAAR - GST

Appeal dismissed after 920-day delay as authority cannot condone delays exceeding 30 days under Section 100(2)

In Re: M/s. Arun Cooling Home

The AAAR dismissed an appeal filed with a delay of 920 days beyond the statutory period. The appellant received the order on 03.04.2021, making the last ... Condonation of delay in filing the appeal and non-payment of fee towards filing of appeal - delay of 920 days - Exemption from GST - service of cold storage of tamarind inner pulp without shell and seeds - comes within the purview of the definition of Agricultural produce vide Notification No. 11/2017 and 12/2013-CT(Rate) dated 28.06.2017 or not - HELD THAT:- The order was received by the Appellant on 03.04.2021 as per the RPAD acknowledgment card received and placed in the office records. Hence the last date for filing the appeal under Section 100(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, would be 02.05.2021. The last date for filing the appeal with a delay of 30 days with condonation petition (as per first proviso to Section 100(2) of the CGST Act, 2017) would be 01.06.2021, Whereas it is seen that the actual date of filing the appeal by the Appellant was on 07.11.2023. Clearly, there has been a delay of 920 days from the last date of filing the appeal under Section 100(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. As per the statute, the Appellate Authority can condone a delay of 30 days beyond the normal period of thirty days given for filing the appeal provided, sufficient cause is shown by the Appellant. In the present case, there is a delay of 920 days which is way beyond the power of the Appellate authority to condone, let alone examining as to whether sufficient cause was shown by the Appellant. The law of limitation in India identifies the need for limiting litigation by striking a balance between the interests of the state and the litigant - the filing of the appeal falls beyond the powers conferred under proviso to Section 100(2) of the COST Act, 2017. The ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises Vs CCE, Jamshedpur [2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] is squarely applicable to the facts of the case. It is evident that this Appellate Authority being a creation of the statute is empowered to condone the delay of only a period of 30 days after the expiry of the initial period for filing appeal. As far as the language of section 100 of the CGST Act, 2017 is concerned, the crucial words are ‘not exceeding thirty days’ used in the proviso to sub-section (2) - further, to hold that this Appellate Authority could entertain this appeal beyond the extended period under the proviso would render the phrase ‘not exceeding thirty days’ wholly redundant. No principle of interpretation would justify such a result. Notwithstanding the above, the Appellate Authority is not a ‘Court’ and hence the power to condone beyond the prescribed period does not lie with it. Since the appeal cannot be allowed to proceed on account of time limitation, the question of discussing the merits of the issue in this case in appeal does not arise. The delay cannot be condoned - appeal dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal2. Payment of Required Fee for Filing the Appeal3. Merits of the Case Regarding Exemption for Cold Storage ServicesSummary:1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:The Appellant filed the appeal after a delay of 920 days, whereas the statutory limit under Section 100(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, is 30 days with an additional 30 days permissible for condonation. The Appellant cited medical reasons for the delay, supported by a discharge summary. The Appellate Authority noted that the delay far exceeded the permissible limit and referenced several legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Singh Enterprises Vs CCE, Jamshedpur, which clarified that statutory bodies have no power to condone delays beyond the prescribed period. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on the grounds of time limitation.2. Payment of Required Fee for Filing the Appeal:The Appellant initially paid Rs. 10,000/- towards SGST but failed to pay the corresponding CGST fee of Rs. 10,000/-. A defect memo was issued, and the Appellant subsequently complied by paying the additional fee. Despite this compliance, the appeal was still dismissed due to the excessive delay in filing.3. Merits of the Case Regarding Exemption for Cold Storage Services:The Appellant sought an advance ruling on whether the service of cold storage of tamarind inner pulp without shell and seeds is exempt under Notification No. 11/2017 and 12/2017-CT(Rate). The AAR ruled that tamarind inner pulp does not qualify as 'Agricultural produce' under explanation 2(d) of the Notification No. 12/2017-CT(Rate), and therefore, the cold storage service is not exempt. The Appellate Authority did not address the merits of this issue due to the dismissal of the appeal on procedural grounds.Order:The appeal filed by the Appellant was dismissed on the grounds of time limitation without delving into the merits of the case.