9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 429X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bers requested the authorised representative (AR) to be more specific about the reasons for delay during the personal hearing on 23.04.2024, the AR explained that TANGEDCO, being a 100% Tamilnadu Government owned Electricity Generation and Distribution Utility, they were outside the ambit of indirect tax compliance matters including Central Excise, Service Tax, VAT, etc., in the past. Even after the introduction of GST, TANGEDCO was not having a dedicated cell of office staff for indirect taxation, as Transmission or distribution of electricity by an electricity transmission or distribution utility, stood exempted. Only after 3 to 4 years of the introduction of CST, when issues started cropping up in GST related matters, a cell with minimal staff to attend to indirect tax compliance was reported to be formed. The delay of one day beyond the normal time limit in filing the appeal is condonable as provided under the proviso to Section 100 (2) of CGST Act, 2017 - this authority is empowered vide Section 101 (1) of the CGST /TNGST Acts, 2017 to pass such orders as deemed fit. The delay in filing the appeal by the appellant beyond the normal time Limit of 30 days is condoned in terms of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such dissimilar provisions, a reference to the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 would also mean a reference to the same provisions under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. 2. The subject appeal was filed under Section 100 (1) of the Tamilnadu Goods Services Tax Act 2017/ Central Goods Services Tax Act 2017 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act') by M/s. Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'Appellant'). The Appellant was registered under the GST Act vide GSTIN 33AADCT4784E1ZC. The appeal was filed against the Advance Ruling No. 122/AAR/2023 dated 19.12.2023 passed by the Tamilnadu State Authority for Advance ruling on the Application for Advance ruling filed by the Appellant. 3.1. The Appellant, as a State Government entity, is assigned the functions of generation and distribution of electricity. The appellant is distribution licensee in terms of the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. In effecting the distribution service as per the various provisions of the Act, charges for various activities, which are inherent and essential to electricity distribution service are charged as stipulated. The ques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red in not holding these services to be naturally bundled supply in the course of ordinary business as a 'composite supply' with the principal supply of electricity by a transmission and distribution utility. 3.3 We observe that in this case, apart from the merits of the case, the appellant had also filed a petition dated 13.03.2024 in the form of an Affidavit of Shri K. BaIakrishnan, Chief Financial Controller/ General of TANGEDCO (the appellant) for condonation of one day delay in filing the appeal. Since the filing of appeal by the appellant in the instant case was beyond the prescribed time limit of 30 days from the communication of Order No. 122/AAR/2023 dated 19.12.2023, we are of the opinion that this aspect as to whether the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned or not, needs to be ascertained, before proceeding to discuss the merits of the case. Accordingly, an opportunity of personal hearing was accorded to the appellant for the limited purpose of condonation of delay. PERSONAL HEARING: 5.1 Accordingly on 23.04.2024, Shri V Ravindran, Advocate, who is the Authorized Representative (AR) of the Applicant appeared for the hearing in virtual mode and reiterated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eing less than one month, the same is condonable in terms of Section 100 (2) of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017. Accordingly, the appellant stated that they are a 100% Tamilnadu Government owned Electricity Generation and Distribution Utility, and that they are making a request for condonation of delay of one day in filing the appeal. 6.3 We observe that in the instant case, having received the advance ruling on 12.02.2024, the appellant ought to have filed the appeal within 30 days, before the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling by 12.03.2024 under normal circumstances, as laid down under Section 100 (2) of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017. However, the proviso to Section 100 (2) of CGST/TNGST Act, 2017, states as follows :- Provided that the Appellate Authority may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by a sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the said period of thirty days, allow it to be presented within a further period not exceeding thirty days. 6.4 The appellant claims that they have filed the appeal on 13.03.2024, whereby we observe that the appeal has been filed by the appellant after a delay of one day, but in any case, we find that the appeal has been fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
