2025 (3) TMI 886 - HC - GST

Time barred proceedings or not - whether the orders issued were beyond the statutory time limits prescribed by the Act? - HELD THAT - In this case proceedings under Section 73 of the U.P. GST Act 2017 were initiated on 20.09.2023 by issuance of a show cause notice and final order has been passed on 15.12.2023 whereas in view of the decision in M/s A.V. Pharma vs. State of U.P. Ors. 2024 (11) TMI 911 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT 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. The impugned orders and proceedings quashed - petition allowed.

Summary

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issue considered in this judgment is whether the proceedings under Section 73 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017, for the financial year 2017-18, were time-barred. Specifically, the court examined whether the orders issued were beyond the statutory time limits prescribed by the Act, considering the extensions provided by notifications.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents

The primary legal framework involves Section 73 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017. Section 73(10) mandates that the proper officer must issue the order within three years from the due date for furnishing the annual return for the financial year in question. The due date for filing annual returns, as per Section 44(1), is ordinarily the 31st of December following the end of the financial year. However, the Commissioner has the authority to extend this deadline through notifications.

In the referenced case of M/s A.V. Pharma vs. State of U.P. & Ors., the court had previously decided on the issue of time limits under similar circumstances, establishing a precedent that the orders passed beyond the prescribed time limits are without jurisdiction.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning

The court interpreted Section 73(10) in conjunction with Section 44(1) to determine the applicable time limits. The due date for filing the annual return for the financial year 2017-18 was extended to 5th February 2020. Consequently, the three-year period for issuing orders under Section 73(9) ended on 5th February 2023. The court noted that a notification dated 24th April 2023 attempted to extend this deadline to 31st December 2023, but this notification was only given retrospective effect from 31st March 2023. Therefore, any orders issued after 5th February 2023 and before 31st March 2023 were considered time-barred.

Key Evidence and Findings

The court relied on the undisputed facts that the show cause notice was issued on 20th September 2023, and the final order was passed on 15th December 2023. These dates fell beyond the three-year period ending on 5th February 2023, as calculated from the extended due date for filing the annual return.

Application of Law to Facts

The court applied the provisions of Section 73(10) and Section 44(1) to the facts of the case, determining that the orders issued were indeed beyond the permissible time frame. The court emphasized that the notification dated 24th April 2023 could not retroactively validate the orders because it was not applicable to periods before 31st March 2023.

Treatment of Competing Arguments

The court acknowledged the argument from the opposite party that the notification dated 24th April 2023 extended the time limit for issuing orders. However, it rejected this argument by highlighting the limited retrospective effect of the notification, which did not cover the period when the orders were issued.

Conclusions

The court concluded that the proceedings and orders under Section 73 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017, were time-barred and without jurisdiction. Consequently, the impugned orders were quashed, and the petition was allowed.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The court reiterated the principle that statutory time limits must be strictly adhered to, and any orders issued beyond such limits are without jurisdiction. The court stated, "Apparently the impugned orders are beyond the time limit prescribed under sub Section 10 of Section 73 as applicable for the financial year 2017-18 and therefore the impugned orders are beyond jurisdiction being barred by the time provided in the said provision."

The court also established that notifications extending time limits must be interpreted with regard to their retrospective application, and any orders issued outside the permissible period cannot be validated retroactively unless explicitly covered by such notifications.

The final determination was that the impugned orders were quashed, and the petitioner's bank accounts, which had been frozen, were ordered to be de-frozen.