July 27, 2021

Clarification Regarding Extension of Limitation Under CGST Act

1. Background

The GST Policy Wing of the Government of India passed a set of notifications under S.168A of the CGST Act, 2017 whereby the time limits and limitation period of various activities and actions of different authorities on multiple issues were specified and extended to certain dates based on the nature of the activity.

However, multiple requests for clarifications were received by the Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India as to how and in what manner the time limitations would operate. The same was directed by the Supreme Court of India in Miscellaneous Application No. 665/2021 in SMW(C) No. 3/2020 to resolve the grievances of the people.

2. Order of the Hon’ble Supreme court dated 27th April 2021

The relevant extract of the Order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is as follows:

“We, therefore, restore the order dated 23rd March, 2020 and in continuation of the order dated 8th March, 2021 direct that the period(s) of limitation, as prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, whether condonable or not, shall stand extended till further orders. It is further clarified that the period from 14th March, 2021 till further orders shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings. We have passed this order in exercise of our powers under Article 142 read with Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Hence it shall be a binding order within the meaning of Article 141 on all Courts/Tribunals and Authorities.”

– In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, 2021

3. Deliberation Of The 43^rd Meeting Of The GST Council:

The aforementioned order of the Supreme Court was deliberated in the 43^rd meeting of the GST Council. The Council in their deliberation provided various relaxations to the taxpayers and further decided that whenever the Supreme Court extends such limitations, they would apply equally in matters of the GST. Thereafter, a legal opinion was also sought on the extent of application of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in this matter and a set of decisions were rendered by the GST Council.

Finally, the GST Policy Wing has clarified the issue of limitations raised by different stakeholders and using their power under Section 168(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 have clarified the same vide CIRCULAR NO. 157/13/2021- GST on 20/07/2021.

4. Final Decision Of The GST Council Post-legal Consultation

On the basis of the legal opinion, various actions/compliances under GST can be broadly categorised as follows: –

A. Proceedings/Compliances Needed To Be Done By Taxpayers-

These actions would continue to be governed as per the CGST Act, 2017 and time limit provided/ extensions granted under the statute itself. Various Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court would not apply to the said proceedings/ compliances on part of the taxpayers. Moreover, the appeals that are pending will be heard as per the CGST Act only.

B. Quasi Judicial Proceedings By Taxation Authorities-

The taxation authorities can continue to hear and dispose-off the proceedings which are already pending. The disposal may include disposal of application for refund, application for revocation of cancellation of registration, adjudication proceedings of demand notices, etc. Similarly, the appeals which are pending can be heard and dispose-off as per the CGST Act or any other notification issued.

C. Appeal By Taxpayers/Tax Authorities Against Any Quasi-judicial Order-

Wherever any appeal is required to filed before Joint/ Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Commissioner (Appeals), Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, Tribunal and various courts against any quasi-judicial order or where a proceeding for revision or rectification of any order is required to be undertaken, the time line for the same would stand extended as per the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order.

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and VJM & Associates LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon.

Proceedings can’t be initiated under Section 74 when tax liability is already discharged along with interest

Establishment of Non-SEZ IT/ITES business in IT/ITES Special Economic Zones| Insertion of Rule 11B to SEZ Rules

Streamlining Company Registration in India: A Digital Transformation

How to Start a Startup Company in India

MCA imposed Penalty for failure to issue and transfer shares in Demat form

Others

MCA imposed Penalty for failure to issue and transfer shares in Demat form

As per Section 29(1A) of Companies Act read with Rule 9A of The Companies (Prospectus and Allotment of Securities) Rules, 2014, every unlisted public company shall ensure that before issuance of any securities entire holding of securities of its promoters, directors, key managerial personnel has been dematerialised in accordance with provisions of the Depositories Act 1996. Further, every shareholder of an unlisted public company is required to dematerialise its securities before transfer, if such transfer is made on or after 2nd October, 2018.

23/04/2024 No Comments

Proceedings can’t be initiated under Section 74 when tax liability is already discharged along with interest

Judgements

Proceedings can’t be initiated under Section 74 when tax liability is already discharged along with interest

The petitioner is engaged in the business of generation of electricity through solar plants. The GST returns filed by the petitioner for the period of July, 2017 to March, 2019 were subject to audit. The petitioner was informed about tax liability during audit proceedings on account of wrong availment of ITC and ITC availed with respect to exempted supply. Upon receipt of initial audit observation, the petitioner discharged the entire tax liability alongwith interest. The final audit report was issued much after payment of GST liability. Post audit, the respondent issued show cause notice to the petitioner under Section 74 of CGST Act and confirmed the demand through DRC-07. The petitioner contended that it falls under purview of Section 73(1) and 73(5) of CGST Act and therefore, SCN under section 74 is not sustainable. Whereas, the respondent contended that this is the case of fraud and willful misstatement.

23/04/2024 No Comments

Establishment of Non-SEZ IT/ITES business in IT/ITES Special Economic Zones| Insertion of Rule 11B to SEZ Rules

Information

Establishment of Non-SEZ IT/ITES business in IT/ITES Special Economic Zones| Insertion of Rule 11B to SEZ Rules

Post COVID-19, there are many corporate entities which are allowing employees to work on Complete Work From Home (WFH) basis or on hybrid basis, i.e., Employees are required to come to office on selected days. This approach has reduced occupancy of physical premises by corporate offices and caused vacation of various rented premises.

23/04/2024 No Comments