In re M/s. TSR & Co (AAAR GST Tamilnadu)
The Tamil Nadu Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling considered an appeal by TSR AND Co. against an advance ruling classifying Pooja Rose Water/Panneer under tariff heading 3301 9079. The appellant sought exemption as Puja Samagri. Before considering classification, the Authority examined a six-day delay in filing the appeal. The ruling was received on 20 May 2026 and the appeal was filed on 25 June 2026, after the normal deadline of 19 June 2026. The appellant explained that its original advocate had died and a new counsel needed time to prepare the appeal. Applying the proviso to Section 100(2) of the CGST Act, the Authority held that the circumstances constituted sufficient cause and the appeal fell within the further 30-day condonable period. Exercising powers under Section 101(1), it condoned the delay and ordered that the classification appeal be considered on merits. It did not decide the substantive GST classification dispute.
The Tamil Nadu Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAAR) considered an appeal filed by M/s TSR AND Co. against Advance Ruling No. 46/ARA/2026 dated 05.05.2026 concerning the GST classification of Pooja Rose Water/Panneer, supplied in small retail packs exclusively for religious rituals. The Authority for Advance Ruling had classified the product under tariff heading 3301 9079. The appellant disputed this classification and claimed exemption as Puja Samagri under Entry 148 of Notification No. 2/2017-Central Tax (Rate), subsequently referred to as Entry 167 of Notification No. 10/2025-Central Tax (Rate). Before considering the merits, the AAAR examined whether the six-day delay in filing the appeal could be condoned.
The appellant received the advance ruling on 20.05.2026 and was required to file the appeal by 19.06.2026 under Section 100(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. However, the appeal was filed on 25.06.2026. The appellant explained that its earlier advocate, Mr. G. Shanmugam, had died unexpectedly, requiring the engagement of another counsel and preparation of fresh appeal documents. The AAAR observed that the proviso to Section 100(2) permits condonation of delay for a further period not exceeding 30 days where sufficient cause is established. Since the appeal was filed only six days beyond the prescribed period, it remained within the statutory condonable limit.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TAMILNADU
At the outset, we would like to make it clear that the provisions of both the Central Goods and Services Tax Act and the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act are in pari materia and have the same provisions in like matter and differ from each other only on few specific provisions. Therefore, unless a mention is specifically made to such dissimilar provisions, a reference to the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 would also mean a reference to the same provisions under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
2. The subject appeal was filed under Section 100(1) of the Tamil Nadu Goods & Services Tax Act 2017/Central Goods & Services Tax Act 2017 (hereinafter referred to `the Act’) by M/s.•TSR AND Co, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Appellant’). The Appellant is registered under the GST Act vide GSTIN 33AGYPB5328G1ZC. The appeal was filed against the Order No.46/AAR/2026 dated 05.05.2026 passed by the Tamil Nadu State Authority for Advance Ruling (hereinafter referred to as ‘AAR’) on the Application for Advance Ruling filed by the Appellant.
3. The Appellant is engaged in the business of manufacturing Tooja Panneer’ and Tooja. Powder and Tablets’. The appellant also makes and sells the product known as Tooja Panner’ which is used for religious rituals in Hindu, Jain, Sikh and other Indian rituals for abhishek, deity cleaning/ sprinkling consecration and for aarti welcome. An application was made before the Authority for Advance Ruling seeking tariff classification for Pooja Panneer’ supplied exclusively for puja/ritual use, marketed in small retail packs.
4. The Authority for Advance Ruling vide Order dated 05.05.2026 has ruled that the appropriate tariff classification of rose water supplied by the applicant exclusively for pooja/rituals marketed as Pooja Rose Water/Panneer in small retail packs is 3301 9079.
5. Aggrieved by the ruling of the Authority for Advance Ruling, the Appellant has filed an appeal against the same in relation to the correct classification of `Pooja Rose Water/Panneer‘ claiming exemption under Puja. Samagri’ referred to in Entry 148, Notification No.2/2017 — CT(R) (now Entry 167, Notification 10/2025-CT(R)).
6. Apart from the merits of the case, the appellant had also filed a petition for condonation of delay. Since the filing of appeal by the appellant in the instant case was beyond the prescribed time limit of 30 days from the passing of Order No.46/ARA/2026 dated 05.05.2026, we are of the opinion that this aspect as to whether the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned or not, needs to be ascertained, before proceeding to discuss the merits of the case. Accordingly, an opportunity of personal hearing was accorded to the appellant for the limited purpose of condonation of delay.
7. PERSONAL HEARING:
7.1 Ms.Srividya.S.U, Advocate appeared for the personal hearing on 23.07.2026 as the Authorized Representative (AR) of M/s. TSR & Co. in respect of the appeal filed against the Advance Ruling no.46/ARA/2026 dated 05.05.2026.
7.2 AR explained that the appeal has been filed before the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling against the Advance Ruling no.46/ARA/2026. There has been a delay of 6 days in filing this Appeal and this is due to the sudden demise of the earlier consultant, Mr.G.Shanmugaxn of the Applicant and the case was subsequently handed over to them. AR requested to condone the delay in filing the Appeal against the said Ruling of Authority for Advance Ruling and admit the appeal.
8. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS:
8.1 We have carefully considered all the material on record, the various submissions made by the Appellant and the applicable statutory provisions. The Appellant is before us, seeking primarily to condone the delay in filing the appeal against the Order No.46/ARA/2026 dated 05.05.2026 passed by AAR.
8.2 The Appellant has stated that they have received the Advance Ruling No. 46/ARA/2026 dated 05.05.2026 passed by the AAR through post on 20.05.2026. They have stated that the appeal could not be filed in time as their Advocate, Mr.G.Shanmugam who had originally handled the AAR application unfortunately died recently and the Appellant had to approach another legal counsel, brief the issue and obtain the draft Appeal papers. The Appellant had stated that they had taken necessary steps to file the Appeal as soon as the legal advice was obtained and the appeal was filed on 25.06.2026 resulting in a delay of 6 days. They pleaded that the delay in filing the appeal was unintentional and was not wilful or deliberate and was only due to the fact that the Appellant was compelled to engage another Counsel due to the unfortunate demise of the earlier Counsel. The Appellant has requested that the delay in filing the Appeal may be condoned.
8.3 It is seen that the appeal was filed on 25.06.2026. As per Section 100(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, 30 days is the time limit for filing the appeal from the date of receipt of the order. We observe that in the instant case, having received the advance ruling on 20.05.2026, the appellant ought to have filed the appeal before the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling by 19.06.2026 under normal circumstances, as laid down under Section 100(2) of the CGST Act, 2017.
8.4 However, the proviso to Section 100(2) of CGST Act, 2017, states as follows :-
“Provided that the Appellate Authority may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by a sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the said period of thirty days, allow it to be presented within a further period not exceeding thirty days.”
8.5 The appellant claims that they were unable to file appeal in time due to the sudden demise of their earlier Counsel and they had to approach another Counsel and get the appeal papers prepared and filed before the Appellate Authority. The appellant having filed the application for appeal on 25.06.2026, we notice that the appeal has been filed after a delay of 6 days, but in any case, we find that the appeal has been filed within the condonable time limit of 30 days, as specified in the proviso referred above.
8.6 We are convinced that the Appellant has been unable to file the appeal within the stipulated time period of 30 days from the date of receipt of order of Authority for Advance Ruling due to unfortunate demise of their earlier Counsel. This being the case, we feel that the appellant has presented sufficient cause that prevented them from filing the appeal within the normal period. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the delay of 6 days beyond the normal time limit in filing the appeal is condonable as provided under the proviso to Section 100(2) of CGST Act, 2017. We further, find that this authority is empowered vide Section 101(1) of the CGST/TNGST Acts, 2017 to pass such orders as deemed fit.
9. Accordingly, we pass the following order:
ORDER
The delay in filing the appeal by the appellant beyond the normal time limit of 30 days is condoned in terms of proviso to Section 100(2) of CGST/TNGST Acts, 2017, and the appeal will be taken up for consideration on merits.
