9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 905 - AT - CustomsLevy of late fee charges - delay in filing the bills of entry - HELD THAT - It is to be stated that the cause of action in this appeal has occurred during the transition period of introduction of GSTIN registration. There were much technical difficulties faced by assessee / importer / exporter during that time due to system failure, server connectivity etc. There were many cases filed before the High Courts - In the present case also, it is seen that the appellant could not obtain the GSTIN registration and had to apply for the second time. Being a new law, it is inferable that it is not easy for the public to understand how to apply and pay the tax under a new law. Further, under Notification No. 26/2017 itself, it is stated that such late fee can be waived if sufficient reasons are furnished before the proper officer. Thus, it is a condonable lapse. In the circular issued by Board dated 31.8.2017, it is stated that the importer should not be penalized for delay happening due to any system related defect. For all these reasons and most importantly since the period involved is during the transition period of GST, the late fee charges imposed is not warranted - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues: Late fee charges imposed for delay in filing bills of entry during the transition period of GSTIN registration.
Analysis: 1. Late Fee Charges Imposed: The appellant filed an appeal against the late fee charges imposed for the delay in filing bills of entry during the transition period of GSTIN registration. The appellant argued that technical glitches in the system caused delays in obtaining GSTIN registration. The appellant applied for registration on 3.7.2017, but due to system issues, they received the registration on 26.7.2017. Consequently, the bills of entry were filed on 2.8.2017 and 3.8.2017, leading to the imposition of a late fee of ?14,55,000. The appellant contended that the delay was due to system-related defects and confusion during the transition period of GST implementation. 2. Legal Arguments: The appellant cited Circular No. 12/2017-Cus. dated 31.8.2017, issued by CBEC, which stated that importers should not be penalized for delays caused by system-related defects. The appellant requested the late fee charges to be set aside based on this circular. On the contrary, the ld. AR supported the late fee charges, emphasizing that the appellant received GSTIN registration on 26.7.2017 and should have filed the bills of entry promptly. 3. Judgment: The Tribunal considered the challenges faced by importers/exporters during the transition period of GST implementation, acknowledging technical difficulties and system failures. Referring to Notification No. 26/2017, which allows for waiving late fees with sufficient reasons, the Tribunal concluded that the late fee charges imposed were not justified. Citing the circular issued by the Board, emphasizing non-penalization for delays due to system defects, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief if necessary. The Tribunal highlighted the challenges faced by the public in understanding and complying with the new GST law during the transition period, leading to the decision to waive the late fee charges in this case. This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues involved, legal arguments presented, and the Tribunal's reasoning for setting aside the late fee charges imposed during the transition period of GSTIN registration.
|
