Gauhati High Court Quashes GST Order Passed Beyond Limitation

Rinkumoni Bordoloi Vs Union of India and 4 Ors. (Gauhati High Court)

In the case of Rinkumoni Bordoloi vs Union of India & Ors., the Gauhati High Court examined the validity of an order passed by the tax authorities under Section 73(9) of the Central and Assam Goods and Services Tax (GST) Acts, 2017. The petitioner, Rinkumoni Bordoloi, contested the order-in-original dated May 4, 2024, arguing that it was issued beyond the statutory limitation period outlined in Section 73(10) of both the Central and State GST Acts. As per the petitioner’s claim, the deadline for issuing such an order for the financial year 2018-19 expired on April 30, 2024. The absence of any government notification extending this deadline further invalidated the order, making it procedurally out of time.

Upon reviewing the submissions from both sides, the Gauhati High Court concluded that the order passed on May 4, 2024, exceeded the limitation period, as no extension had been granted under Section 168A of the GST Act. The court noted that the absence of such an extension made the order beyond the legally permissible time frame, rendering it without jurisdiction. Consequently, the court quashed and set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the petitioner. The writ petition was thereby disposed of. This case reinforces the importance of adhering to statutory timelines under GST law.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GAUHATI HIGH COURT

Heard Mr. RS Mishra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. K Phukan, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Union of India, Mr. SC Keyal, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the CGST and Mr. B Gogoi, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Finance and Taxation Department, Government of Assam.

2. The petitioner herein has assailed the order-in-original dated 04.05.2024 passed under Section 73(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, ‘the Central Act’) and the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, ‘the State Act’) on the ground that the said order has been passed beyond the period of limitation provided under Section 73(10) of both the Central Act as well as the State Act. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned order was passed on 04.05.2024 and in terms with Section 73(10), the order ought to be passed within three years from the due date of filing of the annual returns.

3. The learned counsel submitted that there is no extension granted for the financial year 2018-19 beyond 30.04.2024 and as such the impugned order dated 04.05.2024 is beyond limitation and accordingly without jurisdiction.

4. This Court had duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has given anxious consideration to the respective submissions. It is seen that there is no Notification passed under Section 168 A of both the Central Act as well as the State Act, thereby extending the period for passing the order in terms with Section 73(10) beyond 30.04.2024 for the financial year 2018-19.

5. Taking into account that the impugned order has been passed on 04.05.2024, the same is, therefore, without jurisdiction and accordingly is set aside and quashed.

6. Writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of.