Rinkumoni Bordoloi Vs Union of India and 4 Ors
Date: September 19, 2024
Court: High Court
Bench: Gauhati
Type: Writ Petition
Subject Matter
Adjudication order passed outside the stipulated limitation period defined in Section 73(10) is invalid
Summary
In the case of Rinkumoni Bordoloi vs Union of India & Ors., the Gauhati High Court reviewed the validity of a GST order issued under Section 73(9) on May 4, 2024. The petitioner challenged this order, asserting it was outside the stipulated limitation period defined in Section 73(10), which required such orders to be made within three years post the annual return filing deadline. The petitioner contended that the deadline for the financial year 2018-19 had expired on April 30, 2024, without any governmental notification extending this deadline. The court agreed, noting the lack of extension under Section 168A rendered the order invalid as it exceeded the permissible timeframe. Consequently, the High Court quashed the order, reinforcing the importance of compliance with statutory timelines in GST law. The writ petition was disposed of in favor of the petitioner, highlighting procedural rigor in tax authority actions.
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.