AP HC Quashes GST Revision Order as It Was Passed Beyond Three-Year Limitation

Sneha Constructions Vs Joint Commissioner (Andhra Pradesh High Court)

The Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an Order of revision dated 04.06.2025 passed under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The petitioner, a registered person under the GST Act, had originally been assessed by an assessment order dated 10.07.2020 for the tax periods 2017-18 to 2019-20. Subsequently, the revisional authority initiated suo motu revision proceedings, to which the petitioner filed objections through replies dated 27.05.2024 and 03.06.2024. Thereafter, the revisional authority passed the impugned revision order on 04.06.2025.

The petitioner contended before the High Court that the revision order was beyond the limitation prescribed under Section 108(2)(b) of the GST Act. Reliance was placed on the statutory provision which states that revisional powers cannot be exercised after expiry of three years from the date of the decision or order sought to be revised. Since the original assessment order had been passed on 10.07.2020, the petitioner argued that the revision order dated 04.06.2025 was clearly beyond the permissible three-year period.

The Government Pleader for Commercial Tax opposed the petition and submitted, based on written instructions, that the revisional authority was entitled to extension of limitation by relying upon orders passed by the Supreme Court in proceedings relating to extension of limitation during the COVID-19 pandemic, including orders passed in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 and related miscellaneous applications.

The High Court examined earlier judicial precedents dealing with the applicability of the Supreme Court’s limitation extension orders to statutory authorities. Reference was made to the Supreme Court judgment in Kasi vs. State through the Inspector of Police, Samaynallur Police Station, Madurai District, the Calcutta High Court judgment in Gobindo Das & Ors. vs Union of India and Ors., the Delhi High Court judgment in Vikas WSP Ltd. vs Directorate Enforcement, and earlier judgments of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P.No.12529 of 2024 and W.P.No.19273 of 2025.

The Court observed that these judgments had consistently held that the benefit of extension of limitation granted by the Supreme Court was intended for citizens and litigants approaching adjudicatory forums and was not available to statutory authorities exercising revisional or adjudicatory powers. Applying the same principle, the Court held that the revisional authority could not rely upon the Supreme Court’s COVID-related limitation extension orders to save the revision proceedings from limitation.

Accordingly, the High Court held that the impugned revision order dated 04.06.2025 had been passed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 108(2)(b) of the GST Act. The writ petition was therefore allowed, and the revision order was set aside. No order as to costs was passed, and pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were directed to stand closed.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

The petitioner was a registered person under the provisions of the Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”], had been assessed by an Order of assessment, dated 10.07.2020, for the periods 2017-18 to 2019-20. Subsequently, the 1^st respondent initiated Suo-Motu Revision proceedings. The petitioner had filed objections to the said Revision proceedings, by replies, dated 27.05.2024 & 03.06.2024. Thereafter, the 1st respondent passed an Order of revision, dated 04.06.2025.

2. Aggrieved by the said Order of revision, dated 04.06.2025, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition.

3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the said Order of revision is beyond limitation and would have to be set aside.

4. Sri G. Narendra Chetty, learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the limitation for passing an Order of revision under Section-108(2)(b) of the GST Act, is three years from the date on which the assessment order was passed. Section-108(2)(b) of the GST Act, reads as follows:-

“Section 108: Powers of Revisional Authority:

(1)…..

(2) The Revisional Authority shall not exercise any power under sub-section (1), if –

a. …

b. the period specified under sub-section (2) of section 107 has not yet expired or more than three years have expired after the passing of the decision or order sought to be revised; or

5. As the Order of assessment was passed on 10.07.2020, while the Order of revision had been passed on 04.06.2025, the said Order of revision is clearly beyond the time stipulated under Section-108(2)(b) of the GST Act.

6. Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on written instructions, would submit that the Order of revision, dated 04.06.2025, is within limitation inasmuch as the revisional authority was entitled to claim extension of limitation on the basis of the Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in SLP (C) No.2522/2022 as well as the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, dated 10.01.2022, in Miscellaneous Application Nos.21 & 29 of 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.3 of 2020.

7. The question of the applicability of the Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in favour of the authorities, had been considered in the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Kasi Vs. State through the Inspector of Police, Samaynallur Police Station, Madurai District¹, the Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta, in the case of Gobindo Das & Ors., vs Union of India and Ors² and the Judgment of the High Court of Delhi, in the case of Vikas WSP Ltd., vs. Directorate Enforcement ³ and by this Court, in its Judgment dated 21.04.2025, in W.P.No.12529 of 2024 as well as the Judgment of this Court, dated 06.08.2025, in W.P.No.19273 of 2025. In these Judgments, had held that the benefit of extension of limitation is not available to statutory authorities and the benefit of such extension is available only to the citizens and litigants who are approaching adjudicating fora.

8. In that view of the matter, this Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned Order of revision, dated 04.06.2025, is beyond limitation. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

Notes:

¹ 2020 SCC Online SC 529

² 2021 SCC online Cal 2739

³ 2021 (376) E.L.T 201 (Del)