9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (3) TMI 1330 - AAAR - GSTLevy of GST - rent received by the appellant from the Government Social Welfare College Boys Hostel (Govt SWCBH) - time limitation for filing appeal - HELD THAT - This appeal has been filed with a delay of 22 days. It is contended by the appellant that the order impugned herein was not received by them by mail message or any type of communication. However it is observed that the said order was communicated to the appellant by email on 12.02.2024 inter-alia at the email id [email protected]. It is further observed that in the Application Form for Advance Ruling (Form GST ARA-01) the same email id has been mentioned. Hence it is incorrect of the appellant to submit that they had not received the Order of AAR in time leading to delay. In terms of proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 100 of the CGST Act 2017 the Appellate Authority may if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by a sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the normal limitation period of 30 days allow it to be presented within a further period not exceeding 30 days. In the present case only cause for delay is stated to be that the appellant came to know about the order after 30 days time limit had expired. However the Order dated 09.02.2024 was communicated to the appellant herein on 12.02.2024 and as such the appeal should have been filed by 13.03.2024. No valid reasons for delay beyond 13.03.2024 are forthcoming. Hence the present appeal is liable to be rejected as time barred. The appeal is rejected as barred by limitation.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal question considered in this judgment is whether the rent received by the appellant from the Government Social Welfare College Boys Hostel (Govt SWCBH) is taxable under the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Additionally, the appeal addresses whether the appellant's services qualify for exemption under entry number 3 of Notification No. 12/2017-CT, which pertains to services related to functions entrusted to a Municipality/Panchayat under Article 243W/243G of the Constitution of India. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Relevant legal framework and precedents: The appeal is filed under Section 100 (1) of the TGST Act, 2017, against the Advance Ruling TSAAR Order No.05/2024. The appellant contends that their services should be exempt under entry number 3 of Notification No. 12/2017-CT, which exempts pure services related to functions entrusted to a Municipality/Panchayat under Article 243W/243G. The Advance Ruling Authority had previously ruled that the rent received is taxable, considering the service as related to education. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Appellate Authority examined whether the appeal was filed within the prescribed time limit. The authority noted that the impugned order was communicated to the appellant via email on 12.02.2024, and the appeal should have been filed by 13.03.2024. The appellant claimed they did not receive the order, but the authority found this claim incorrect as the email was sent to the address provided by the appellant in their application. Key evidence and findings: The primary evidence considered was the communication of the impugned order to the appellant's email address. The authority found that the order was indeed sent to the correct email, which contradicted the appellant's claim of non-receipt. Application of law to facts: The authority applied the provisions of Section 100 (2) of the TGST Act, which allows an appeal to be filed within 30 days of the order's communication. The proviso to this section permits a further extension of up to 30 days if sufficient cause is shown for the delay. The appellant failed to provide a valid reason for the delay beyond the initial 30-day period. Treatment of competing arguments: The appellant argued that their services were related to the welfare of weaker sections and should be exempt under the relevant notification. However, the authority focused on the procedural aspect of the appeal's timeliness and did not delve into the substantive merits of the exemption claim due to the appeal being time-barred. Conclusions: The authority concluded that the appeal was filed beyond the permissible time limit without sufficient cause for the delay. Consequently, the appeal was rejected as time-barred. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Core principles established: The judgment reinforces the principle that appeals must be filed within the statutory time limits unless a valid reason for delay is demonstrated. The procedural requirements for filing appeals under the TGST Act are strictly enforced. Final determinations on each issue: The appeal was dismissed on procedural grounds due to being filed beyond the allowable time frame without adequate justification for the delay. The substantive issue of whether the rent received is taxable was not addressed due to the procedural dismissal.
|
