9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 513 - AAAR - GSTCondonation of delay of 65 days in filing appeal - Power to condone the delay beyond 30 days - Classification of supply - taxable supply of services or not - income earned from conducting Guest Lectures - income earned from Research and Training Projects funded by Ministries of Government of India and State Government of Karnataka - taxable supply of service to be taxed at Nil rate under Heading 9992 or to be taxed at IGST 18% under Heading 9983? - HELD THAT - The proviso to Section 100(2) empowers this Authority to condone a further delay of 30 days if it is satisfied that the Appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period of 30 days. This grace period which is available to the Appellant for filing the appeal and which is condonable by us expires on 20-04-2022. 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 VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAMSHEDPUR 2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT . 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 India, can condone the delay. It is evident that this Appellate Authority being a creature of the statute is empowered to condone a delay of only a period of 30 days after the expiry of the initial period for filing appeal. As far as the language of the proviso to Section 100 (2) of the CGST Act is concerned, the crucial words are not exceeding thirty days . 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 otiose. No principle of interpretation would justify such a result. Therefore, we hold that we are not empowered to condone the delay of 27 days beyond the condonable period, in filing this appeal. Since the appeal cannot be allowed to be presented on account of time limitation, the question of discussing the merits of the issue in appeal does not arise - Appeal dismissed on the ground of limitation.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the income earned from conducting Guest Lectures amounts to a taxable supply of service. 2. Whether the income earned from Research and Training Projects funded by the Government amounts to a taxable supply of service to be taxed at Nil rate under Heading 9992. 3. Whether the income earned from Research and Training Projects funded by the Government amounts to a taxable supply to be taxed at IGST 18% under Heading 9983. 4. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Taxability of Income from Guest Lectures The appellant, a Professor of Law at NLSIU, engages in classroom teaching and training. The AAR ruled that income from conducting Guest Lectures amounts to a taxable supply of services as per Entry No (ii) of 21 of Notification No 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28-06-2017. The appellant contested this, arguing that the services provided are in connection with his employment and should be exempt under Entry 72 of Heading 9992 of Notification No 12/2017 dated 28-06-2017, as they relate to arts and culture and are recreational. Issue 2: Taxability of Income from Government-Funded Projects under Heading 9992 The appellant argued that the training and education provided under Government-funded projects should be treated as technical training, attracting Nil rate as per Sl.No 72 of Heading 9992 of Notification No 12/2017 dated 28-06-2017. The AAR, however, classified these services under SAC 9983, attracting GST at 18%. The appellant claimed these services fall under Entry 18 of the Eleventh Schedule to the Constitution, which should exempt them from GST. Issue 3: Taxability of Income from Government-Funded Projects under Heading 9983 The AAR ruled that in the absence of recipient details, the services merit classification under SAC 9983 and attract GST at 18%. The appellant argued that these services are pure services rendered to the Government, exempt under Entry Sl.No 3 of Notification No 12/2017 CT (Rate). Issue 4: Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal The appellant filed the appeal after a delay of 65 days, citing unavoidable personal reasons and relying on the Supreme Court's order dated 10th January 2022, which extended the limitation period due to COVID-19. The appeal was filed on 26th May 2022, within the extended period of limitation granted by the Supreme Court. Discussions and Findings: The Appellate Authority examined whether the delay merits condonation under the CGST Act, 2017, and the Supreme Court's directions. The appeal was filed beyond the prescribed 30 days from the date of communication of the advance ruling order. The Supreme Court's order allowed the exclusion of the period from 15-03-2020 to 28-02-2022 for computing limitation, providing a 90-day extension from 01-03-2022. However, the Authority noted that the period of limitation for filing an appeal under Section 100 of the CGST Act ends on 21-03-2022, and the condonable period expires on 20-04-2022. The appeal filed on 26-05-2022 was beyond the condonable period. The Authority concluded that it is not empowered to condone the delay beyond the prescribed period, referencing the Supreme Court's judgment in Singh Enterprises vs CCE, which held that appellate authorities cannot condone delays beyond the statutory period. The Authority also noted that the Limitation Act does not apply unless extended to the special statute, citing the Supreme Court's rulings in Kiren Enterprise vs State of Tripura and Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise vs Hongo India (P) Ltd. Order: The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed on grounds of time limitation. The Authority did not discuss the merits of the issues in the appeal due to the time-barred nature of the filing.
|
