9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 982X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SGST Act, 2017) by The Deputy Conservator of Forests, Bangalore Urban Division, Department of Forest, Government of Karnataka, Aranya Bhavan, 18th Cross, Malleshwaram, Bangalore 560003 (herein after referred to as Appellant) against the advance Ruling No. KAR/ADRG 20/2019 dated 26-08-2019 = 2019 (9) TMI 824 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, KARNATAKA. Brief Facts of the case: 3. The Appellant is a Government Department (Karnataka forest Department) and under its sovereign functions, raises "plants" of tree species, plants them in forest, waste and common lands. Over time, with the nurturing and management of the Department, these plants grow up to become trees when they are harvested to yield timber, poles, billets, firewood, pulpwood, etc which are raw material for carpentry, fuel and fibre industries. 4. The task of harvesting these trees which grew from plants planted by the Department is given to Government Corporations. The Corporations fell the trees, convert them into timber, firewood, poles, etc so that they become marketable for the primary market, load and transport the marketable timber, firewood, etc by vehicles, unload and stack the marketable timber, firewood, etc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort services to agriculture, forestry, fishing, animal husbandry falling under heading 9986. As per explanation (iii) to the said entry, support services to forestry means '(iii) Carrying out an intermediate production process as job work in relation to cultivation of plants and rearing of all life forms of animals, except the rearing of horses, for food, fibre, fuel, raw material or other similar products or agricultural produce' Therefore, the finding of the Advance Ruling Authority in para 5.8 of impugned Ruling to the effect that activity of logging is not support service to forestry and hence, is not covered under entry No. 24 of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 is not correct/rational and the same is not in harmony with the wordings of the Notification. 6.2. Further, the Hon'ble Advance Ruling Authority have made finding to the effect that such logging service received by the Appellant Applicant is of the nature of composite supply and the principal supply is covered under Sub entry (ii) of Entry No. 26 of the Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and therefore, the same is taxable under CGST at 9% and SGST at 9% and simi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt to 'manufacture'. The logging operation does not result in change in basic features/ characteristics of the product/goods to mean it as manufacturing. Therefore, findings of the learned Advance Ruling Authority is not proper and the same is not in accordance with law. Therefore, the impugned ruling in so far as it relates to logging operations is liable to set aside as not sustainable and not lawful. 6.4 The Hon'ble Advance Ruling Authority has not offered an opportunity to the Appellant applicant to defend themselves with written submissions against the proposed ruling holding logging operations to be manufacturing service attracting CGST of 9% and SGST of 9% OR IGST of 18% against entry no. 26 vide Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017. The Advance Ruling Authority ought to have given an opportunity to the Appellant Applicant to defend himself against proposed adverse conclusion affecting the Appellant Applicant. Having not heard the Appellant applicant, it is violation of the principles of natural justice because of which the impugned ruling is liable to be set aside in so far as it relates to logging operations. 6.5 Manufacturing is an activity which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther submitted that periodically, a working plan is evolved for management of forests by the Department to achieve the general objectives of the management of forests; that the working plan is a detailed document of activities to be taken up by the Forest Department to conserve and develop forests. One of the important area of action towards this objective is to maintain the health and hygiene of the forests; that for achieving this, removal of debris which is lying in the form of dead and fallen wood and mature standing trees from forest areas is to be taken out on regular basis; to take this material out of the forest, trees need to be cut further to make it convenient for transportation to the forest Depot. This operation also creates favourable conditions on the ground for taking up regeneration activities. These activities are collectively and loosely termed as logging or extraction which is otherwise part of functions necessary for conserving and developing forest; that they are similar to the process of harvesting the agricultural corps. In addition, they submitted a copy of the working plan of Yellapura Forest Division and drew attention to the objectives of the forest ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, The said legal provision is well expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Econ Antri Ltd Vs M/s. Rom Industries Ltd & another (2014) 11 SCC 769,decided on 26.08.2013 = 2013 (9) TMI 246 - SUPREME COURT upholding the law to exclude the date on which cause of action. In this regard, they reproduced para 25 of the decision in the case of M/s. Econ Antri: "25. Having considered the question of law involved in this case in proper perspective, in light of relevant judgments, we are of the opinion that Saketh lays down the correct proposition of law. We hold that for the purpose of calculating the period of one month, which is prescribed under Section 142(b) of the N.I. Act the period has to be reckoned by excluding the date on which the cause of action arose." In view of the above submissions, the Appellant most prayed that the Appellate Authority may exercise their discretionary powers and condone the delay in filing the appeal and dispose off the same on merits in the interest of justice. DISCUSSION & FINDINGS: - 8. We have gone through the records of the case and taken into consideration the submissions made by the Appellant in their grounds of appeal and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4-10-2019. Therefore, the submission made by the appellant that the advance ruling order was received and diarized in the appellant's office on 05.10.2019 is not acceptable. 11. We however agreed with the appellant's submission that the day on which the cause of action arises is to be excluded for computation of time limitation. The general rule in cases in which a period is fixed within which a person must act or take the consequences is that, the day of the act or event from which the period runs should not be counted against him. The law on this point has been stated by Halsbury in Halsbury's Laws of England, Third Edition. Vol. 37 page 95. This general rule applies irrespective of whether the limitation of time is imposed by the act of a party or by statute. The same principle is enunciated in Section 9 of the General Clauses Act which reads as under: "9. Commencement and termination of time:- (1) In any (Central Act) or regulation made after the commencement of this Act, it shall be sufficient, for the purpose of excluding the first in a series of days or any other period of time, to use the word "from and, for the purpose of including the last in a series of days or any ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which the prayer for condonation can be accepted is statutorily provided. It was submitted that the logic of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (in short the Limitation Act) can be availed for condonation of delay. The first proviso to Section 35 makes the position clear that the appeal has to be preferred within three months from the date of communication to him of the decision or order. However, if the Commissioner is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of 60 days, he can allow it to be presented within a further period of 30 days. In other words, this clearly shows that the appeal has to be filed within 60 days but in terms of the proviso further 30 days' time can be granted by the appellate authority to entertain the appeal. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 35 makes the position crystal clear that the appellate authority has no power to allow the appeal to be presented beyond the period of 30 days. The language used makes the position clear that the legislature intended the appellate authority to entertain the appeal by condoning delay only up to 30 days after the expiry of 60 d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l position, it is evident that this Appellate Authority being a creature of the statue 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 Section 100 of the CGST Act is concerned, the crucial words are "not exceeding thirty days" used in the proviso to sub-section (2). 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 one day in filing this appeal.
16. 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.
17. In view of the above we pass the following order
ORDER
We dismiss the appeal filed by the appellant The Deputy Conservator of Forests, Bangalore Urban Division, Department of Forest, Government of Karnataka, Aranya Bhavan, 18th Cross, Malleshwaram, Bangalore 560003, on grounds of time limitation. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
