Case Law Details
In re Link Up Textiles Private Limited (GST AAAR Tamilnadu)
The present appeal was filed under Section 100(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 against an advance ruling dated 08.10.2025 issued by the Tamil Nadu State Authority for Advance Ruling. The appellant, a private limited company registered under GST, is engaged in exporting men’s pyjama sets comprising a top (kurta/shirt) and bottom (pyjama/trouser) made of cotton, polyester, and spandex blends, packed as two sets per pack. The appellant had initially sought an advance ruling on the appropriate HSN classification and applicable GST rate for such products when sold in combined packs.
The Authority for Advance Ruling had ruled that when two pyjama sets are packed together and priced below ₹1,000 per piece or set, the applicable GST rate would be 5% under the relevant notification. Aggrieved by this decision in respect of cases where the value per set exceeds ₹1,000, the appellant preferred an appeal contending that the correct unit for taxation should be a “set” and that a GST rate of 12% should apply where the value per set exceeds ₹1,000, in terms of the relevant schedule.
Before examining the substantive issue relating to classification and tax rate, the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling considered the preliminary issue of delay in filing the appeal. The appeal had been filed beyond the statutory time limit of 30 days prescribed under Section 100(2) of the Act. Therefore, the appellant filed a petition seeking condonation of delay.
A personal hearing was granted limited to this issue. During the hearing, the authorized representative submitted that multiple attempts were made to file the appeal online on the GST portal, but these attempts failed due to technical errors. Screenshots of error messages were submitted, which indicated repeated system prompts such as “Please enter valid appellant/authorised signatory name.” It was also submitted that the appellant had raised a helpdesk ticket and communicated the issue through email. Due to continued inability to file the appeal online, the appellant eventually filed the appeal physically with the department. It was contended that the delay was neither deliberate nor due to negligence but was caused by circumstances beyond control.
On examination of the records, the authority noted that the advance ruling was received around mid-October 2025, and the appeal should ordinarily have been filed by 12.11.2025. However, the appeal was filed on 10.12.2025, resulting in a delay of 28 days beyond the prescribed period.
The authority then considered the proviso to Section 100(2) of the CGST Act, which allows condonation of delay for a further period not exceeding 30 days if sufficient cause is shown. It was observed that the delay of 28 days falls within this condonable period. The authority also examined the evidence submitted by the appellant, including screenshots of repeated technical errors and proof of communication with the GST helpdesk.
Based on these materials, the authority was satisfied that the appellant had made repeated attempts to file the appeal within the prescribed period but was prevented from doing so due to technical glitches on the GST portal. It concluded that the appellant had demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay and that the delay was unintentional and not attributable to negligence.
Accordingly, exercising powers under the proviso to Section 100(2) read with Section 101(1) of the Act, the Appellate Authority condoned the delay of 28 days in filing the appeal. The authority ordered that the appeal be admitted and taken up for consideration on merits in due course.
The order is confined to the issue of condonation of delay and does not decide the substantive dispute regarding GST classification or applicable tax rate.
Read AAAR/AAR Orders in this case:
Per-Piece Valuation Prevails Over Multi-Pack Packaging in Determining GST Rate on Apparel
Men’s Cotton Pyjama Sets Classified Under HSN 620721; 5% GST Applicable for Packs Under Rs. 1,000
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF AUTHORITY FOR APPELLATE 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 is filed under Section 100(1) of the Tamil Nadu Goods 86 Services Tax Act, 2017/Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to ‘the Act’) by M/s. LINK UP TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Appellant’). The Appellant is registered under the GST Act vide GSTIN 33AAACL1248E1Z2. The appeal was filed against the Order No.42/AAR/2025 dated 08.10.2025 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 a Private Limited company under the administrative control of `Central Authority’ and they are engaged in exporting Men’s Pyjama Set consisting of a top (Kurta/Shirt) and bottom (pyjama/trouser) made of cotton, (TOP-67% Cotton, 29% Polyester, 4% Spandex Woven Shirt; Bottom — 67% Cotton, 29% polyester, 4% Spandex woven pant) in 2 sets/pack. The Appellant had applied for Advance Ruling vide application ARA-01 No.3/2025/ARA. dated 18.02.2025, with regard to certain queries on HSN code and applicable GST rate on two Men’s Pyjama Sets packed in a single pack with the AAR, who vide Ruling No. 42/AAR/2025 dated 08.10.2025 pronounced the decisions for the respective queries raised by the Appellant.
4. Aggrieved over one such decision on. the issue relating to the query, viz., “What is the applicable GST rate on such men’s Pyjama sets which are packed in 2 sets as per their buyers instruction and the cost of such packed Pyjama sets costs more than Rs.1000” where the AAR had ruled that GST rate of tax applicable for 2 Pyjama sets packed in a single pack and costing less than Rs.1,000 per piece or set will be 5% (i.e. CGST-2.5% + SGST-2.5%) as per S.no.223 of Schedule I of notification no.1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, the Appellant has filed the present appeal. Under the grounds of appeal as submitted by the Appellant, they have contended that the relevant unit is a “set” and the applicable rate is 12% (6% CGST + 6% SGST) under S.no.224 of Schedule II to Notification no.1/2017-Central Tax (Rate), where the sale value per set exceeds Rs.1,000/-.
5. We observe that in this case, 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.42/AAR/2025 dated 08.10.2025, 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.
6. PERSONAL HEARING:
6.1 Shri.G.Shanmugam, Advocate appeared for the personal hearing on 06.01.2026 as the authorized representative (AR) of M/s. Link Up Textiles Private Ltd in respect of the appeal filed against the Advance Ruling no.42/AAR/2025 dated 08.10.2025.
6.2 AR stated that they had tried to file this Appeal online on 5 different times, but unable to file as showed in the screenshots enclosed along with the appeal. He stated that they have also sent email to Helpdesk and raised a ticket. After many failed attempts of online filing, they had filed the Appeal physically with the department. AR further stated that the delay in filing the Appeal was due to the above reasons and not intentional.
6.3 AR requested to condone the delay in filing the Appeal against the said Order of Authority for Advance Ruling and admit the appeal.
7. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS:
7.1 We have carefully considered all the materials 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. 42/AAR/2025 dated 08.10.2025 passed by AAR.
7.2 The Appellant has stated that they have received the Advance Ruling No. 42/AAR/2025 dated 08.10.2025 passed by the AAR through post on 14.10.2025. They have stated that the appeal could not be filed in time as they were unable to upload appeal documents in the GST portal due to certain unknown error/technical issues. They have stated that despite repeated attempts, they could not file the appeal via online mode and the above said system/technical error still persist. They have further stated that due to this continuous technical error, they were left with no other option except to file appeal documents manually with reasonable cause of delay. They pleaded that since there has been no deliberate delay or negligence on their part and the delay is purely unintentional and circumstances beyond their reasonable control, this delay in filing appeal may be condoned.
7.3 It is seen that the appeal was filed on 10.12.2025. As per Section 100(2) of the COST 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 13.10.2025 through the GST portal, the appellant ought to have filed the appeal before the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling by 12.11.2025;iinder normal circumstances, as laid down under Section 100(2) of the CGST Act, 2017.
7.4 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.”
The appellant having filed the application for appeal on 10.12.2025, we notice that the appeal has been filed with a delay of 28 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.
7.5 The appellant claims that they were unable to file appeal online due to some unknown error /technical issues. On perusal of the screenshots furnished by the appellant pertaining to filing of Appeal on different dates, we see that a message “Please enter valid appellant/authorised signatory name” gets reflected. The same is appearing on all the screenshots taken on different dates. It is also seen that the Appellant have sent email to Helpdesk and ticket has been raised.
7.6 Going by the documents available on record, 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 order of Authority of Advance Ruling due to unknown technical glitches/issues. 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 28 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.
8 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.
Author Bio
