Page 198 - GSTL_23rd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 4

524 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
The appellants were represented by Shri M. Sidramappa, Deputy Conservator of
Forests, Urban Division & Shri Eswarappa G.B., Consultant, who reiterated that
submissions made in the grounds of appeal. They also submitted that the main
activity is to manage the forest area which involves removal of fallen and dead
wood and timber. This activity of forest management is commonly called ‘log-
ging’ and is outsourced to contractors. They contended that this activity of log-
ging is to be considered as support services in the management of forests. They
further submitted that periodically, a working plan is evolved for management
of forests by the Department to achieve the general objectives of the management
of forests; that the working plan is a detailed document of activities to be taken
up by the Forest Department to conserve and develop forests. One of the im-
portant area of action towards this objective is to maintain the health and hy-
giene of the forests; that for achieving this, removal of debris which is lying in
the form of dead and fallen wood and mature standing trees from forest areas is
to be taken out on regular basis; to take this material out of the forest, trees need
to be cut further to make it convenient for transportation to the forest Depot. This
operation also creates favourable conditions on the ground for taking up regen-
eration activities. These activities are collectively and loosely termed as logging
or extraction which is otherwise part of functions necessary for conserving and
developing forest; that they are similar to the process of harvesting the agricul-
tural corps. In addition, they submitted a copy of the working plan of Yellapura
Forest Division and drew attention to the objectives of the forest management
listed therein whereby it can be seen that timber/firewood are by products of the
activity of forest management. They further submitted that all the functions of
extraction of unwanted material from the forest to the place of storage is primary
function of the department involving engaging labour/services through an enti-
ty only for the sake of functional convenience. Therefore, all these activities are
essentially support services to the forestry sector. They also relied on the Hand-
book of Silviculture to buttress their case that “Forestry” is the true equivalent of
‘agriculture; that silviculture deals with the theory and practice of raising forest
crops, their growth and care up to the time of harvesting. They also submitted
that the activities enumerated in their application do not qualify as ‘manufacture’
as no raw material or input subjected to any processing is involved and there is
no new product emerging with a distinct name, character and use. Therefore, the
findings of the lower Authority to this extent are not correct.
7.1 During the personal hearing, it was pointed out by the Members
that the appeal was filed beyond the period of 60 days from the date of receipt of
the advance ruling. In this connection, the appellant confirmed that they received
the ruling on 5-10-2019 as the same was diarised in the appellant’s office on 5-10-
2019. It is consistently held by various judicial decisions that the day on which
cause of action arises is to be excluded for computation of time limitation. In the
instant case cause of action arose on 5-10-2019 and the same is to be excluded for
computation of time. It means, time begins, in the instant case from 6-10-2019
and 30 days normal time for preferring appeal ends on 4-11-2019. Further, grace
period available for discretionary exercise of power by the Appellate Authority
begins on 5-11-2019 and 30 days grace period in the instant case of the appellant
ends on 4-12-2019. The appellant filed the appeal on 4-12-2019. Therefore, it is
prayed that the Appellate authority may exercise its discretionary power, in the

GST LAW TIMES  23rd April 2020  318