Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + AAAR GST - 2020 (12) TMI AAAR This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 1335 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, RAJASTHANCondonation of delay in filing appeal - time limitation - delayed filing of appeal under Section 100 (2) of the CGST Act - henna is classifiable under chapter 14 or 33 of GST Tariff or not - HELD THAT:- The Appellant has filed appeal on line on 17.06.2020. The Appellant has deposited SGST fee of Rs. 10000/- on 15.06.2020 and CGST fee of Rs. 10000/- on 22.10.2020. On perusal of appeal filed on 17.06.2020, it was found that the appellant has not filed the appeal in prescribed format. The appellant further filed the appeal in prescribed format on 02.11.2020 - the date of filing of appeal is 02.11.2020 which is 63 days delay from the last date i.e 31.08.2020. Further, the Appellant has deposited CGST (appeal) fee of Rs. 10000/- on 22.10.2020. As per provisions, the authority has discretion to condone the delay for 30 days. As discussed, we hold that delay in filing of this appeal is beyond the discretionary power (30 days) provided to Appellate authority. Therefore, condonation application filed by the appellant is liable to be rejected. The non-payment of CGST fee and non-filing appeal in prescribed format are procedural lapses - the payment of appeal fee and filing of appeal in prescribed format is mandatory requirements as per provisions of Section 100 (3) of the CGST Act, 2017. Section 100 (3) of the CGST Act, 2017 stipulates that every appeal under this section shall be in such form, accompanied by such fee and verified in such manner as may be prescribed. The said rules do not provide any discretion in non- implementation. The appellant has relied upon on the decisions in CENTRAL INDIA TOBACCO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE [1987 (2) TMI 256 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] and UNION OF INDIA, DELHI VERSUS ROSHAN LAL AND ANR. [1967 (9) TMI 157 - DELHI HIGH COURT] where the issue was related to non-payment of court fees, but in this case, issue is related to determination of date of filing of appeal also. In this case, part fee has been deposited on 15.06.2020 and second part fees have been deposited on 22.10.2020. In this case complete fee has been deposited and appeal in prescribed format has been filed after more than 30 days from the due date of filing of appeal. Therefore, these case laws are not squarely applicable in this case. When it has been held that delay in filing of appeal is beyond the discretionary power provided to Appellate authority, therefore, it is observed that discussing appeal on merit would not be relevant. The condonation application filed by the appellant is hereby rejected and appeal is also rejected
|