http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/233060/index.do
Kamwar Inc. (July 13, 2017 – 2017 TCC 138, Russell J.).
Précis: In 2012 the applicant was assessed GST/HST for the reporting period October 23, 2009 to September 30, 2010. It took no steps until 2016 when it attempted to file a Notice of Objection with CRA. CRA rejected the Notice of Objection as being out of time and the applicant applied to the Tax Court for an extension. The Tax Court dismissed the application on the basis that it was well outside the statutory limitation period for filing an extension application. There was no order as to costs.
Decision: The applicant simply ran up against the road block of the statutory limitation period for filing an extension application:
[2] The principal of Kamwar, Mr. Gunaratnam Vaithilingam, testified in support of this application. I accept his evidence as having been entirely credible. He testified that due to family issues he was living away from his home, the address of which was also Kamwar’s official address, at the time the said Notice of (Re)assessment would have been sent. He said that for this reason likely, he never saw the said Notice. He did not try to suggest or argue that the Notice had never been sent. In cross-examination he suggested it may have gone astray in the mail. He stated he only became aware of the assessment in September or October of 2016 when Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) Collections contacted him.
[3] He stated he is currently working as a telemarketer for $12 an hour and suffers from depression. His spouse was suffering from cancer. He seeks an opportunity to prove the full ITC that had been reduced by the Minister. He requested the Court’s indulgence in granting an extension of time so as to provide the opportunity to file a notice of objection.
…
[9] The circumstances of the Applicant’s principal evoke compassion. However, the precise and unambiguous wording of subsection 304(5) does not admit of any opportunity for judicial exercise of discretion. Unless a subsection 303(1) application was made prior to June 6, 2013, Parliament has denied the Court, by its very specific wording of the introductory words of subsection 304(5), any ability to do other than deny this application. And, the uncontroverted evidence here is that the subsection 303(1) application was only filed October 20, 2016, being well more than three years too late.
[10] It is with regret that I accordingly am obliged to dismiss this section 304 application for extension of time to file the desired notice of objection. This application is dismissed, without costs.
As a result, the Tax Court dismissed the application on the basis that it was well outside the statutory limitation period for filing an extension application. There was no order as to costs.