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

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 date for filing appeal 02.05.2021, or 01.06.2021 with condonation petition, but filed on 07.11.2023. The AAAR held it lacks power to condone delays exceeding 30 days under Section 100(2) of CGST Act, 2017. Following Singh Enterprises v CCE precedent, the authority ruled that statutory limitations cannot be exceeded, making the phrase "not exceeding thirty days" redundant otherwise. The appeal was dismissed without examining merits due to time-barred filing.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal
2. Payment of Required Fee for Filing the Appeal
3. Merits of the Case Regarding Exemption for Cold Storage Services

Summary:

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.

---