A GST demand order passed beyond Section 73(10)’s limitation period is unsustainable.

The petitioner, Brahmaputra Tele Productions Pvt. Ltd., challenged an order dated 30 April 2024 passed for the financial year 2018–2019, imposing tax of ₹36,86,748 along with interest and penalty.

It contended that the order was not legally sustainable under Sections 73 and 75 of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“State Act”), was passed beyond the limitation period under Section 73(10), and was made without granting an opportunity of hearing.

The petitioner argued that Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28 December 2023 could not extend limitation under the State Act and that the notification had been set aside by the Gauhati High Court in Barkataki Print and Media Services v. Union of India.

1. Whether the impugned order dated 30 April 2024 for financial year 2018–2019 was barred by limitation under Section 73(10) of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, in the absence of a valid State notification extending the limitation period.

2. Whether the impugned order complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 75 of the State Act, including the manner of drawing up the order and the grant of an opportunity of hearing.

Section 73(10) of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 prescribes the limitation period for passing an order under Section 73(9); for financial year 2018–2019, that period expired on 31 December 2023.

Section 168A permits extension of statutory time limits through an appropriate notification, but the Court held, following Barkataki Print and Media Services v. Union of India, that Assam had not issued a pari materia notification extending the relevant period for financial year 2018–2019 after 1 April 2024.

Section 75(4) mandates an opportunity of hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated, while Section 75(6) requires the adjudicating authority to specify the relevant facts and basis of its decision in the order.

The limitation period under Section 73(10) for financial year 2018–2019 expired on 31 December 2023. Since the impugned order was passed only on 30 April 2024, it was prima facie beyond the statutory period.

The Court relied on Barkataki Print and Media Services, which had found that Assam had not issued a corresponding State notification extending the limitation period for the relevant financial year; the Central notification could not independently validate the order under the State Act.

Independently, the order failed to satisfy Section 75 because it was not drawn up in the manner required by Section 75(6) and was passed without providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing as required under Section 75(4).

These defects rendered the order legally unsustainable.

The order was accordingly set aside and quashed.

The writ petition was disposed of, and any interim order was vacated.