TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 753
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ition, the Petitioner has challenged the Impugned Order dated 03.02.2025 for the Tax Period 2017-2018. 3. The Petitioner was earlier issued with an Intimation in Form GST DRC-01A dated 20.09.2023 for the Tax Period 2017-2018, to which, the Petitioner had replied on 29.10.2023 stating that the proposal in the said Intimation in Form GST DRC-01A dated 20.09.2023 was time barred in terms of limitation under Section 73 of the respective GST Enactments. 4. The disputed had arisen on account of a mismatch between the amount in GSTR-2A and the amount claimed by the Petitioner as Input Tax Credit in GSTR-3B. 5. The facts reveal that the Petitioner had claimed excess Input Tax Credit in GSTR-3B for discharging the tax liability during the T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mation in Form GST DRC-01A, it is not open to the Respondent to invoke machinery under Section 74 at a later point of time, after the Petitioner filed an objection on 29.10.2023. 11. The learned Government Advocate for the Respondent, on the other hand, would submit that the question of limitation either under Section 73 or 74 of the respective GST Enactments would not apply in the facts of the case as the last date for passing orders fell during the time when the limitation was suspended due to outbreak of Covid-19. It is submitted that the limitation under Section 73 of the respective GST Enactments could not have expired on 31.12.2021. 12. It is further submitted that since there is a variation in the amount specified in the return....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titioner's reply was inadequate and did not deal with the intimation in Form GST DRC-01A dated 20.09.2023, a fresh Notice was issued in Form GST DRC-01 dated 06.12.2023 by invoking Section 74 of the respective GST Enactments. 15. The learned Government Advocate for the Respondent would submit that since the Petitioner failed to respond to the intimation in Form GST DRC-01A, there is a suppression within the meaning of Explanation-2 to Section 74 of the respective GST Enactments. Therefore, it is submitted that no case is made out for interfering with the Impugned Order confirming the demand under Section 74 of the respective GST Enactments. 16. The learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the following cases:- (i) Rajaa O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cluding indirect tax enactment viz., respective GST Enactments, should have excluded the time period as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation in Miscellaneous Application Nos.21 and 29 of 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 dated 10.01.2022 from time to time. 20. Subsequently, TOLA ordinance was also issued and thereafter Section 168A of the respective GST Enactments was introduced vide the taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 220 (38 of 2020) published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 1, dated 29.09.2020 which brought into force with effect from 31.03.2020 for extending the period of limitation under the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ication No.56/2023) 28.02.2025 Adding 334 days 23. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the proceedings were time barred either under Section 73 or under Section 74 of the respective GST Enactments. There are indications in the Impugned Order dated 03.02.2025 that the Petitioner's returns were scrutinized under Section 61 and Form ASMT-10 was issued on 28.06.2023, pursuant to which the above mentioned Intimation and the Show Cause Notice were issued. Thus suppression of fact is at large. Therefore, there is no merits in this Writ Petition. 24. This is in view of the Common Order passed in the batch today by a Separate Order, wherein it has been explained in detail that the threshold for invoking the extended period of limit....