M. M. Motors & Anr. Vs Senior Joint Commissioner of Revenue (Calcutta High Court)
Summary: This is a general news article commenting on the Calcutta High Court’s decision in M. M. Motors & Anr. Vs Senior Joint Commissioner of Revenue. It states that the High Court held an adjudication order under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, digitally signed on 30 April 2024 within the extended limitation period, remained valid although it was uploaded on the GST portal and communicated on 1 May 2024. The article questions the Court’s distinction between making, issuance and communication of an order, noting that Section 73 refers to issuance of the order while Section 169 prescribes the modes of service. It discusses concerns regarding the interpretation of “issuance”, the absence of a statutory outer limit for communication, and the impact on limitation under GST. The article also contrasts internal signing with transmission of an order, refers to the technology-driven nature of the GST regime, and suggests that the issue may require consideration by an appellate forum regarding whether statutory limitation is complied with when an order has not crossed from an internal departmental record to a legally communicated decision.
Has the Calcutta High Court unintentionally diluted the law of limitation under GST?
