TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Introduction: What the filed formations fail to understand repeatedly even after several articles published on this topic is that they still strongly believe that the provisions contained in the GST Law are binding on the tax payers whereas authorities may pass orders as they wish. Unlike the erstwhile Indirect Tax Laws such as VAT, Excise or Service Tax, GST Law provides for time limit to issue SCN as well as to pass final orders under the applicable sections 73, 74 as well as 74A. An interesting case of delay of one day in passing the order is discussed here in the following paragraphs.
Limitation: The limit under section 73(2) for issuing SCN is two years and 9 months from the due date for filing the respective annual return whereas the due date for passing the order is three years from the due date for filing the respective annual return as contained in section 73(10). The authorities, in matters connected with condonation of delay, normally reject the condonation application where the delay is only one day, even with sufficient justifiable grounds. However, order was passed under section 73 one day after completion of the limitation.
Year 2018-19: Time limit for issuance of SCN was 31/01/2024 whereas time limit to pass order was 30/04/2024. Under these circumstances, SCN was issued on 20/04/2024 and the order was passed on 01/05/2024. The issue came up before the Telengana High Court in writ petition number 16297 of 2025 in the matter of Lakshmi Banu Steel Traders. The issue was examined and order was passed on 25/06/2025.
ORDER: It was held by the High Court that as the order was passed only on 01/05/2024 as against 30/04/2024 being the last date to pass that order, there is merit in the claim of the petitioner that the order is to be considered as not valid in the eyes of law and accordingly set aside the order and allowed the writ petition.
Conclusion: Unlike the other cases, where the matter is normally remanded to the original adjudicating authority for reexamination with proper reply and after affording personal hearing, here, in this case, order is set aside and held as not valid. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for full relief as there is no room to reopen the case.
Appeal: When an order is passed by a quasi judicial authority and the same is either quashed or set aside by a higher court, whether by GSTAT or High Court or Supreme Court, the jurisdictional Commissioner must sensitize the officers under the control of the Commissioners to desist from passing such orders which may be quashed at a later date.