The AAR was justified in rejecting the appeal on the ground of limitation as it was not having power to condone the delay beyond 30 days. Therefore, this Court also does not find reason to condone the delay keeping in view the statutory provisions.
Section 97 of the CGST Act, 2017— Order passed by AAAR – Limitation Period-- The petitioner challenged the order dated 21.09.2020 passed by the Karnataka AAAR under Section 97 of the Act, 2017. The petitioner is involved in the exploration of wide range of minerals including iron ore, copper, lime stone, dolomite etc. The petitioner is required to pay royalty as per Section 9(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957. The petitioner sought an advance ruling. The AAR vide its order dated 21.09.2019 gave its ruling. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the AAAR on 22.06.2020 and the AAAR has dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. The petitioner counsel submitted that the order on the issue of advanced ruling was passed on 21.09.2019 and the application for rectification for advanced ruling was rejected on 23.03.2020 and therefore, keeping in view the doctrine of merger, the limitation should have been counted with effect from 23.03.2020. Hence the order passed by the AAAR deserves to be quashed. The respondent counsel submitted that petitioner has filed an application for rectification of advanced ruling on 23.01.2020 and the same was disposed of by an order dated 23.03.2020 as there was no error apparent on the face of the record and therefore, the doctrine of merger does not take place. The court observed that the AAAR was justified in rejecting the appeal on the ground of limitation as it was not having power to condone the delay beyond 30 days. The law of limitation in India identifies the need for limiting litigation by striking a balance between the interests of the state and the litigant.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the petition.
The AAR was justified in rejecting the appeal on the ground of limitation as it was not having power to condone the delay beyond 30 days. Therefore, this Court also does not find reason to condone the delay keeping in view the statutory provisions.
Section 97 of the CGST Act, 2017— Order passed by AAAR – Limitation Period-- The petitioner challenged the order dated 21.09.2020 passed by the Karnataka AAAR under Section 97 of the Act, 2017. The petitioner is involved in the exploration of wide range of minerals including iron ore, copper, lime stone, dolomite etc. The petitioner is required to pay royalty as per Section 9(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957. The petitioner sought an advance ruling. The AAR vide its order dated 21.09.2019 gave its ruling. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the AAAR on 22.06.2020 and the AAAR has dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. The petitioner counsel submitted that the order on the issue of advanced ruling was passed on 21.09.2019 and the application for rectification for advanced ruling was rejected on 23.03.2020 and therefore, keeping in view the doctrine of merger, the limitation should have been counted with effect from 23.03.2020. Hence the order passed by the AAAR deserves to be quashed. The respondent counsel submitted that petitioner has filed an application for rectification of advanced ruling on 23.01.2020 and the same was disposed of by an order dated 23.03.2020 as there was no error apparent on the face of the record and therefore, the doctrine of merger does not take place. The court observed that the AAAR was justified in rejecting the appeal on the ground of limitation as it was not having power to condone the delay beyond 30 days. The law of limitation in India identifies the need for limiting litigation by striking a balance between the interests of the state and the litigant.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the petition.