TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 513
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....60056 (herein after referred to as Appellant) against the Advance Ruling order No. KAR ADRG 03/2022 dated 21st January 2022. Brief Facts of the case: 3. The Appellant is a Professor of Law at the National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bangalore and engages in classroom teaching and training for students, the payments for which are made by the Government. The Appellant is also engaged in providing training on Law and Legal Awareness to Government Departments, Ministry and Public sector organisations, either on personal invitation or based on projects and other assignments allotted to Centre on Environmental Law, Education, Research and Advocacy (CEERA), NLSIU. The Appellant is also engaged by organizations to impart training to their employees/students through lectures on the subtleties of law in a recreational manner. 4. The Appellant took a GST registration in 2019-20 with GSTIN 20AFZPB2086B1ZB, since the revenue from training had exceeded Rs 20 lakhs and he has paid GST on the remittances received. The Appellant later cancelled the GST registration w.e.f 26-09-2019. In order to seek clarification as to whether the services rendered by him amounts to a taxable supply ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lows the recipients to carry out their regular work diligently. 6.2. The Appellant submitted that the service performed falls under the entry 18 of the Eleventh Schedule to the Constitution of India and as such all technical training as provided under the grants received from the Government of India, be treated as technical training which does not amount to a taxable supply of service and attracts Nil rate as per Sl.No 72 of Heading 9992 of Notf 12/2017 dated 28-06-2017; that the grants from such Projects and Agreements executed by NLSIU are carried out by the Appellant in his capacity as Professor of Law at NLSIU, which is an activity covered under Schedule III of the CGST Act, 2017 amounting to services by an employee in the course of or in relation to his employment. 6.3. The Appellant also filed an application for condonation of delay of 65 days due to unavoidable personal reasons; that the impugned order was received on 19-02-2022 but the Appellant was unable to file the appeal within time; that in view of the Supreme Court's direction in Re: Cognizance for extension of limitation vide order dated January 10, 2022 wherein the Supreme Court has granted a limitation of 90 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... submitted that the exemption contained at SI.No 80 of the Notf No 12/2017 Central Tax (Rate) is for services by way of training or coaching in recreational activities relating to arts and culture; that the Appellant provides the training to organizations who engage his services to provide recreation to their employees and to break the monotony of their regular work. He submitted that the definition of arts and culture as given in the dictionaries covers all aspects of social behavior and norms found in human societies; that an awareness on law and legal aspects is linked to social behavior and hence gets covered under training in arts and culture. He also submitted that the training given by the Appellant to private organizations and institutions is for the recreation of the employees of the organization since it helps to break the monotony of their daily work and makes them happier. In this connection, he relied on the feedback given by the Direct Tax Regional Training Institute that the officers would have been happier if the training session was for two days instead of the one day session. 7.3. In view of the above, he submitted that the Appellant is not liable to pay GST on a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay in filing the instant appeal. The appeal has been filed after a delay of 65 days (from 21-03-2022 to 26-05-2022) without taking into account condonation by AAAR. The Appellant has sought for condonation of delay by relying on the Supreme Court's order dated 10th January 2022 in Re: Cognizance for extension of limitation. We will first examine whether the delay merits condonation in terms of the CGST Act, 2017 as well as taking note of the Supreme Court's directions on limitation as contained in its order dated 10th January 2022. 9. In terms of Section 100 (2) of the CGST Act, an appeal to this Authority should be filed within 30 days from the date of communication of the advance ruling order that is sought to be challenged. However, in terms of the proviso to Section 100(2) of the said Act, the Appellate Authority is empowered to allow the appeal to be presented within a further period not exceeding 30 days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the initial period of 30 days. In the Form ARA-02, the appellant has stated that the date of communication of the impugned advance ruling order was 19-02-2022. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....its (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings. The Appellant particularly claims the benefit of the directions in Para 5(III) above and has contended that they have a limitation period of 90 days from 01-03-2022 to file the appeal; that the appeal filed by them on 26-05-2022 is well within the extended period of limitation granted by the Supreme Court in its order dated 10-01-2022. 11. We have perused the Supreme Court order dated 10-01-2022 in Suo Motu WP (Civil) 3/2020. In order to understand the impact of this order 10-01-2022, let us go back in time to know what prompted the Supreme Court to take Suo Motu cognizance for extension of time limitation. Due to the onset of COVID-19 pandemic, the Supreme Court took suo moto cognizance of the challenge faced by the litigants in filing petitions/applications/suits/appeals/all other proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or under any special laws (both Central and/or State). Accordingly, on 23"1 March, 2020, the Hon'ble Supreme Court invoked their plenary powers under Article 142 read with Article 141 of the Constitution of India and p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....preme Court in its final order dated 10th January 2022. The two situations are as follows: Actions relating to the impugned advance ruling Dates as per Section 100 of the CGST Act Situation 1 Dates computed as per Supreme Court order dt 10-1-2022 Situation 2 Remarks Date of issue of AAR order 21-01-2022 21-01-2022 - Date of receipt of AAR order by the Appellant 19-02-2022 19-02-2022 - Date of limitation for filing an appeal 21-03-2022 30-03-2022 Period between 20-02-2022 to 28-02-2022 is excluded as per SC order Further period of 30 days condonable by AAAR 20-04-2022 29-04-2022 Date of filing appeal 26-05-2022 26-05-2022 No of days delay after condonable period 36 27 The Appellant has contended that the limitation of 90 days from 01-03-2022 as granted by the Supreme Court in Para 5(III) of its final order dated 10-01-2022 is applicable to them and accordingly they have 90 days time to file the appeal and not 30 days as per the GST statute; that the appeal filed on 26-05-2022 is well within the limitation period of 90 days as granted by the Supreme Court. 14. We do not agree with this interpretation. Para 5(III) of the Supr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which is condonable by us expires on 20-04-2022 in the case of Situation 1 of above Table and on 29-04-2022 in the case of Situation 2 of the above Table. The appeal in this case, has been filed on 26.05.2022 which is 36 days after the expiry of the grace period in the case of Situation 1 and 27 days after the expiry of the grace period in the case of Situation 2. In both situations the delay is beyond the condonable powers of the Appellate Authority. The question whether this Appellate Authority can entertain an appeal under Section 100 of the CGST Act beyond the condonable period does not require much debate and has been answered in the negative by the Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises vs CCE reported in (2008) 3 SCC 70. The Supreme Court in the said case interpreted Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which is similar to Section 100 of the CGST Act and examined the question whether the Commissioner (Appeals) has the power to condone the delay beyond the period of 30 days from the date of expiry of the period prescribed for filing the statutory appeal and also whether the High Court, in exercise of the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of ....