Case Title | Deputy Conservator of Forest |
Court | Karnataka AAAR |
Honorable Judges | Member D.P.Nagendra Kumar & Member M.S.Srikar |
Citation | 2020 (03) GSTPanacea 32 HC Karnataka KAR/AAAR-15/2019-20 |
Judgement Date | 03-March-2020 |
Council for Petitioner | M.Sidramappa |
Council for Respondent | Eswarappa G.B |
Section | Section 100 (2) |
In Favour of | In Favour of Revenue |
The Karnataka bench of Member D.P.Nagendra Kumar & Member M.S.Srikar has held that 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.
FACTS OF THE CASE
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.
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 in government timber depots. All these operations done by the Corporation is termed as “logging” for which charges are paid by the Appellant to the Corporations. The Appellant submitted an application dated 02.03.2018 seeking advance ruling on the following issues:
Issue No. 1 “(A) Is it legally correct to infer that the entire service of “logging” and its components described before do not attract GST under the CGST Act, 2017? If not, what is the correct position by law?
(B) In case the trees have grown from “plants” not planted by the Karnataka Forest Department, but that which grew by natural regeneration but were nurtured, managed and protected by the Karnataka Forest Department, does the same nil rate of SGST and CGST apply to them too? If not, what would be the rate?”
Issue No. 2 “(a) In case of sale of forest produce or any other goods belonging to Karnataka Forest Department, where the buyer is registered or is based in and transports the goods to outside the State of Karnataka, what should be charged under the CGST Act 2017, (A) SGST and CGST or (B) IGST?
(b) In case of forest produce or any other goods belonging to Karnataka Forest Department, where the buyer is registered or is based outside the State of Karnataka, but uses the goods within the State of Karnataka, what should be charged under the CGST Act 2017, (A) SGST and CGST, or (B) IGST?.”
The Advance Ruling Authority passed Advance Ruling order No. KAR ADRG 20/2019 dated 26.08.2019 AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, KARNATAKA, wherein they ruled as follows: –
1.The operation of “logging” as described in Issue 1 of the application would attract tax under the Goods and Services Tax Acts and it is independent of the trees, whether planted by the Forest Department or which grew out of natural regeneration.
2.The transaction described in the application in Issue No. 2, is an intra-State supply and attracts CGST and SGST and is independent of where the goods are taken by the recipient after the supply is completed.”
The Appellant is aggrieved by the ruling given in respect of logging activities and has filed this appeal.
COURT HELD
Considering the facts as recorded, held that 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, bench held that they are not empowered to condone the delay of one day in filing this appeal.
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
“As pointed out earlier, the language used in Sections 35, 35-B, 35-EE, 35-G and 35-H makes the position clear that an appeal and reference to the High Court should be made within 180 days only from the date of communication of the decision or order.
In other words, the language used in other provisions makes the position clear that the legislature intended the appellate authority to entertain the appeal by condoning the delay only up to 30 days after expiry of 60 days which is the preliminary limitation period for preferring an appeal.
In the absence of any clause condoning the delay by showing sufficient cause after the prescribed period there is complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act,
The High Court was, therefore, justified in holding that there was no power to condone the delay after expiry of the prescribed period of 180 days.”
Download PDF:
Deputy Conservator of Forest
For Reference Visit:
Karnataka High Court
Read Another Case Law:
GST Case Law