Case Details
-
Case Title: M/s Anita Traders Lko. U.P. Thru. Proprietor Aneeta Sharma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of State Tax Lko. and Another
-
Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
-
Petition Number: Writ Tax No. 57 of 2025
-
Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:7771-DB
-
Date of Judgment: 06.02.2025
- Category of Dispute: GST Demand – Limitation under Section 73(10)
-
Relevant Sections: Section 73(9) & 73(10), Section 44(1) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017
Facts (Paras 1–3, 7)
The petitioner challenged the demand order dated 02.12.2023 and show cause notice dated 29.09.2023 issued under Section 73 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017. The core contention was that the impugned orders were barred by limitation as prescribed under Section 73(10). For FY 2017–18, the annual return due date was 31.12.2018, later extended to 05.02.2020. Consequently, the three-year limitation ended on 05.02.2023. Despite this, the assessment order was passed on 02.12.2023.
Questions Before the Court (Para 4–6)
Whether the demand and assessment orders issued beyond 05.02.2023 were valid in light of the retrospective effect claimed under Notification dated 24.04.2023, which extended the limitation period up to 31.12.2023.
Observations (Paras 5–8)
The Court examined Section 73(10) and Section 44(1). It observed that although the notification dated 24.04.2023 extended limitation up to 31.12.2023 for FY 2017–18, it had retrospective effect only from 31.03.2023. Since the limitation had already expired on 05.02.2023, the benefit of this notification could not revive the already time-barred proceedings. Thus, the assessment order dated 02.12.2023 was without jurisdiction.
Judgment (Paras 8–9)
The writ petition was allowed. The demand order dated 02.12.2023 and SCN dated 29.09.2023 were quashed as being barred by limitation. Consequential reliefs, including setting aside adverse effects of the impugned orders, were directed.
Table of Case References
| Case | Citation | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| Writ Tax No. 264 of 2024 (Allahabad HC) | Order dated 12.11.2024 | Held that limitation under Section 73(10) for FY 2017–18 expired on 05.02.2023 and notification dated 24.04.2023 could not revive proceedings already time-barred. |
Between Fine Lines
For businesses, this ruling confirms that tax demands issued beyond the statutory three-year limitation under Section 73(10) are unenforceable, even if later notifications purport to extend the period. Extensions apply only if the limitation had not already lapsed, reinforcing certainty in compliance timelines.
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”
