2022 (7) TMI 1166 - AAAR - GST

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - Taxability - Appellant is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 - client-service provider relationship - Induction and in-service training to Indian Corporate Law Service (ICLS) officers - Capacity building and training programs in the field of competition law, market regulations, finance, corporate governance and public policies - Policy advisory functions, public outreach and stakeholder consultations through seminars, conferences and forums - management consultancy services or not - HELD THAT - In terms of Section 100 of the CGST Act, 2017 an appeal should be filed within 30 days from the date of communication of the advance ruling order that is sought to be challenged. However, 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 advance ruling order is 28.06.2019 Clearly the appeal has not been filed within the prescribed time period of thirty days from the date of communication of the order. Whether the appeal filed on 14.02. 2020 is within the condonable period of another 30 days? - HELD THAT - The Appellate Authority is not a Court and hence the power to condone beyond the prescribed period does not arise - Furthermore, the provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to the appeal proceedings before the appellate authority. Since the appeal cannot be allowed to proceed on account of time limitation, the question of discussing the merits of the issue in appeal does not arise - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the activity of the Appellant is taxable under the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017.
2. Whether the appeal filed by the Appellant is within the permissible period of limitation.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Taxability of the Appellant's Activities under CGST Act, 2017

The Appellant, Indian Institute of Corporate Affairs (IICA), argued that the advance ruling treating a grant transaction as a service transaction is incorrect. They contended that there is no client-service provider relationship as per the Supreme Court's decision in Apitco Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Hyderabad. The Appellant highlighted the absence of 'consideration' or 'supply' necessary for invoking GST provisions, emphasizing that the contract is executed without profit motive and any unspent amount must be refunded to the donors. They cited the Supreme Court's affirmation in the APITCO case, which held that grants-in-aid used for welfare schemes do not establish a service provider-client relationship.

The Appellant further referenced the case of Madhya Pradesh Consultancy Organisation Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal, where it was held that grants-in-aid for specific activities are not liable for service tax. The Appellant argued that their activities fall under this category as they receive grants for specific charitable activities, and any unspent balance is subject to refund.

The Appellant also contended that their activities do not fall under "in the course or furtherance of business" as defined under Section 2(17)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017. They argued that their activities are charitable, without any profit motive, and the grants received are for specific purposes with no discretion for surplus generation. They cited various Supreme Court judgments to support their claim that receipts for specific charitable purposes cannot be treated as trade receipts.

Issue 2: Limitation Period for Filing the Appeal

The Appellate Authority examined whether the appeal was filed within the permissible period of limitation. According to Section 100 of the CGST Act, 2017, an appeal should be filed within 30 days from the date of communication of the advance ruling order, with a possible extension of another 30 days if sufficient cause is shown. The Appellant received the advance ruling order on 28.06.2019 but filed the appeal on 14.02.2020, beyond the permissible period.

The Appellant argued that they were under the impression that the Appellate Authority was not constituted and cited a letter from the GST Council dated 30.01.2020 confirming the constitution of the Appellate Authority on 03.09.2019. However, the Appellate Authority noted that the appeal was filed during the pre-COVID period, and the Supreme Court's order regarding extension of limitation due to COVID-19 did not apply.

The Appellate Authority referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Singh Enterprises Vs. CCE, Jamshedpur, which held that statutory authorities cannot condone delays beyond the period specified in the statute. The Appellate Authority concluded that it lacked the power to condone the delay beyond the additional 30 days provided by the statute.

Conclusion:

The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on the grounds of time limitation, stating that it did not have the authority to condone the delay beyond the permissible period. Consequently, the merits of the issue regarding the taxability of the Appellant's activities were not discussed. The order emphasized that statutory authorities must adhere strictly to the limitation periods prescribed by the statute.