CA in Jaipur | CA. Yogesh Jangid |ITR Filing 2023 | Company Registration | NGO Registration | Income Tax Raid Cases | Audit | Inc Incroporation | CPA in India | Subsidy | Project Funding | GST | GST Raid Cases | Income Tax Notice Faceless | DRI Cases |

Extension of Appeal Filing Time by the Appellate Authority

editor — Fri, 12 Apr 2024 05:00:41 +0000

Introduction:

The authority of the Appellate Authority to extend the period for filing an appeal was deliberated upon in the case of Jyanata Ghosh v. State of West Bengal by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court.

Facts of the Case:

Mr. Jyanata Ghosh, referred to as the Petitioner, received a Show Cause Notice (SCN) which lacked essential details regarding personal hearing.
Following the SCN, an Order was issued on August 11, 2023, under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, demanding a significant sum from the Petitioner for a specified period.
The issuance of this order violated principles of natural justice as it did not grant the Petitioner an opportunity for personal hearing.
Challenging this order, the Petitioner appealed before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act, only to have the appeal dismissed on the grounds of limitation.

Issue:

Whether the Appellate Authority possesses the jurisdiction to extend the period for filing an appeal.

Held:

The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court directed that the Appellate Authority should have granted the Petitioner a personal hearing and decided the appeal on its merits, emphasizing the violation of the principle of natural justice.
The court cited precedents such as Murtaza B Kaukawala v. State of West Bengal and S.K. Chakraborty & Sons v. Union of India, highlighting that delay can be condoned if the principles of natural justice are violated.
It was further noted that the prescribed period for filing an appeal, initially set at 30 days, can be extended by the Appellate Authority, as mandated by Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Consequently, the court condoned the delay in filing the appeal and allowed the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order dated January 17, 2024. Additionally, it ordered a stay on the recovery proceedings pending the disposal of the appeal case, upon the Petitioner’s deposit of the pre-deposit amount, thereby disposing of the writ petition in favor of the Petitioner.

category

Consolidation of Adjournment in GST Proceedings

editor — Wed, 27 Mar 2024 08:49:50 +0000

In the legal matter of Pioneer Co-Operative Car Parking Servicing and Constructions Society Ltd. against Senior Joint Commissioner [WPA No. 3092 of 2024 dated March 1, 2024] at the Calcutta High Court, the petition was resolved, establishing that an adjournment granted for Show Cause Notice (SCN) proceedings under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”) cannot be merged with an adjournment granted for other proceedings under GST.

Facts of the case:

Pioneer Co-Operative Car Parking Servicing and Constructions Society Ltd. (“the Petitioner”) is a cooperative society registered under the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 1973. It operates in collecting parking fees. The Petitioner received an SCN on September 12, 2023, from the Revenue Department (“the Respondent”) under Section 73(1) of the CGST Act. The Petitioner responded to the notice. Subsequently, a Final Order dated November 6, 2023 (“the Impugned Order”) was issued, determining the tax liability under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act.

The Petitioner, dissatisfied with the Impugned Order, filed a writ petition alleging inadequate opportunity for a hearing.

Issue:

Whether adjournment granted for Show Cause Notice proceedings under Section 73 of the CGST Act can be clubbed together with adjournment granted for other proceedings under GST?

Held:

The Calcutta High Court, in the case of WPA No. 3092 of 2024, made the following determinations:

It was observed that under sub-section (5) of Section 75 of the CGST Act, the proper officer may grant adjournment upon sufficient cause shown, with written reasons. However, such adjournments should not exceed three times during the proceedings.
It was reasoned that adjournments granted to the Petitioner concerning proceedings under Section 61 of the CGST Act should not be combined with SCN proceedings. Thus, the Petitioner had adequate opportunities to respond to the SCN issued under Section 73(1) of the CGST Act.
The communication dated February 15, 2024, regarding tax recovery was deemed unsustainable and subject to annulment.
It was directed that the Petitioner must submit a response to the SCN, and the Respondent should schedule a personal hearing accordingly.

category

Discretion of Appellate Authority in Admitting Appeals Beyond Limitation Period

editor — Tue, 26 Mar 2024 04:48:21 +0000

In the case of Arvind Gupta v. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue State Taxes [Writ Petition Application No. 2904 of 2023 dated January 04, 2024], the esteemed Calcutta High Court determined that the Appellate Authority possesses the discretion to permit the submission of an appeal within one month after the expiration of the prescribed limitation period from the date of order communication, provided sufficient cause is demonstrated, as per Section 107(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”).

Facts of the case:

The Appellate Authority retains discretion to accept appeals submitted after the limitation period.
The Calcutta High Court, in Arvind Gupta v. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue State Taxes [Writ Petition Application No. 2904 of 2023 dated January 04, 2024], affirmed that the Appellate Authority possesses discretion to entertain appeals within one month after the expiration of the limitation period as per Section 107(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ("CGST Act").
Arvind Gupta, the petitioner, appealed before the Senior Joint Commissioner of Revenue, mentioned in the annexure to FORM GST APL-01 the period of delay and reasons for the delay:

Issue:

Whether the Appellate Authority may exercise discretion to admit appeals submitted within one month after the limitation period?

Held:

Relied on, the Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of S.K. Chakraborty v. Union of India & Ors. (MAT 82 of 2022) where the Bench held that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 have not been expressly or impliedly excluded by Section 107 of the CGST Act under Section 29(2) of the CGST Act. Therefore, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 stands attracted. Hence, the Respondent has the discretion to allow an appeal to be presented within one month after the expiry of the period of limitation stipulated from the date of communication of the order upon sufficient cause being shown as per Section 107 (4) of the CGST Act. Paraphrase
Observed that, it was well within the power of the Respondent to consider the prayer of the Petitioner for condonation of delay. The Impugned Order passed by the Respondent that there is no scope to condone the delay beyond four months suffers from infirmity.
Noted that, the delay was evident from the annexure to FORM GST APL-01 and the Petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the statutory period.
Held that, the Respondent failed to exercise its jurisdiction. The delay in presenting the appeal before the Respondent was condoned. The Respondent was directed to consider the appeal on merit and decide the same in accordance with law upon giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner.

category

ITC Transition not to be denied in case of Input Service Distributor (ISD)

editor — Sat, 23 Mar 2024 06:22:00 +0000

In the case of Siemens India Ltd. v. Union of India [Writ Petition No. 986 of 2019 dated February 09, 2024], the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, drawing upon sub-section (7) of Section 140 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”), postponed the proceedings for further examination. The court upheld the temporary halt granted to the Assessee, who is an Input Service Distributor (“ISD”), emphasizing that Input Tax Credit (ITC) legitimately available to the Assessee before the Appointed Day should not be forfeited due to the absence of an effective procedural mechanism for transferring ITC to the Electronic Credit Ledger for utilization. This situation could lead to the permanent loss of such ITC.

Facts of the case:

Siemens India Ltd. (“the Petitioner”), registered as an Input Service Distributor (ISD), initiated a writ petition regarding the transition of Input Tax Credit (ITC) available to them on July 1, 2017 (“the Appointed Day”). The petition contested the Revenue Department’s (“the Respondent”) refusal to allow transition or utilization of ITC in the Electronic Credit Ledger, citing a defective electronic mechanism.

These proceedings stemmed from a Supreme Court order dated March 24, 2023, in Union of India and Ors. v. Siemens Ltd. and Ors [SLP (Civil) Diary No. 7213 of 2023], directing a fresh consideration of the case, taking into account relevant contentions and legal provisions.

Issue:

Is an Input Service Distributor (ISD) entitled to transition ITC available on the Appointed Day?

Held:

The Bombay High Court, in Writ Petition 986 of 2019, made the following determinations:

The primary concern revolves around the legal ramifications of sub-section (1) and sub-section (7) of Section 140 of the CGST Act, outlining transitional arrangements for the carry-forward and utilization of ITC by ISDs.
Citing sub-section (7) of Section 140 of the CGST Act, the Court emphasized that legitimately available ITC with the Petitioner before the Appointed Day cannot be forfeited due to the absence of an effective procedural mechanism for transferring ITC to the Electronic Credit Ledger for utilization, thus preventing permanent loss of such ITC.
The Court suggested that a thorough examination of these issues by the GST Council would aid in the adjudication process.
It was decided that interim relief granted to the Petitioner would remain in force.
The case was adjourned until August 9, 2024.

category