2025 (3) TMI 481 - HC - GST

Impugned order are time barred or not - extension of the time limit provided by a notification is applicable retrospectively or not - HELD THAT - In this case proceedings under Section 73 of the U.P. GST Act 2017 were initiated on 02.03.2023 by issuance of a show cause notice and final order has been passed on 06.12.2023 whereas in view of the above quoted judgment such an order could have been passed only till 31.12.2023 even after extension of the time limit. The facts aforesaid being undisputed in the sense that they are mentioned in the impugned order and the records itself apparently the proceedings culminating in the impugned order are time barred therefore there are no reason to call for a counter affidavit. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Presented and Considered:

The core legal question in this case revolves around whether the impugned orders under the U.P. GST Act, 2017 for the year 2017-18 are time-barred, as argued by the petitioner, and whether the extension of the time limit provided by a notification is applicable retrospectively. The Court must determine the jurisdiction of the impugned orders based on the time limit prescribed in the relevant provisions.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents:

The Court refers to Section 73(10) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017, which mandates that the proper officer must issue an order within three years from the due date for furnishing the annual return for the relevant financial year. Additionally, Section 44(1) outlines the requirement for filing annual returns within the specified time frame.

2. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:

The Court analyzed the timelines provided in the Act and the notifications issued for extending the time limit for filing annual returns. It noted that the impugned orders were dated beyond the prescribed time limit, even with the extension granted by a notification. The Court emphasized that the retrospective effect of the notification was limited to a specific date, and if the time limit had expired before that date, the extension would not apply.

3. Key Evidence and Findings:

The Court considered the dates of the impugned orders, the notifications extending the time limit, and the provisions of the U.P. GST Act, 2017. It found that the impugned orders were indeed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 73(10) for the financial year 2017-18.

4. Application of Law to Facts:

Applying the relevant legal provisions to the facts of the case, the Court concluded that the impugned orders were issued beyond the jurisdiction conferred by the Act due to being time-barred. The Court highlighted the significance of adhering to statutory time limits in such matters.

5. Treatment of Competing Arguments:

The Court considered the arguments presented by both parties, particularly regarding the applicability of the notification extending the time limit. It scrutinized the provisions of the Act and the notifications to determine the validity of the impugned orders in light of the prescribed timelines.

6. Conclusions:

The Court ultimately held that the impugned orders dated 05.10.2024 and 02.12.2023, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector 05, Lucknow, were beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 73(10) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 for the financial year 2017-18. As a result, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned orders, and directed the de-freezing of the petitioner's accounts.

Significant Holdings:

The core principle established in this judgment is the importance of adhering to statutory time limits in the context of issuing orders under the U.P. GST Act, 2017. The Court's final determination was to quash the impugned orders as they were found to be beyond the jurisdiction conferred by the Act due to being time-barred.