9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 481X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Tax No.264 of 2024 [M/s A.V. Pharma vs. State of U.P. & Ors.]. The aforesaid judgment dated 12.11.2024 reads as under:- "1. Supplementary affidavit on behalf of petitioner and short counter affidavit on behalf of State filed today are taken on record. 2. Heard Shri Anuj Kudesia, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State as also Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Deputy Commissioner, State G.S.T., Lucknow, who is present before this Court. 3. The present writ petition has been filed with the following reliefs:- "i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order on Form GST DRC-13 dated 05.10.2024 issued by Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector 05, Lucknow c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 2017-18 upto 31.12.2023, however, what is being omitted from consideration by the opposite party is that this notification dated 24.04.2023 has been given retrospective effect only from 31.03.2023 and not prior to it, now, in this context we may refer to Section 73 (10) of the Act, 2017, which reads as under:- "(10) The proper officer shall issue the order under sub-section (9) within three years from the due date for furnishing of annual return for the financial year to which the tax not paid or short paid or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised relates to or within three years from the date of erroneous refund." 6. We may also refer to Section 44(1) of the Act, 2017, which reads as under:- "44. Annual return -(1) Every reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he opposite parties are relying on the notification dated 24.04.2023 to submit that in fact they could have passed the order under sub Section 9 of Section 73 uptill 31.12.2023 however in doing so, they omit to consider para no. 2 of the said notification which says that the notification dated 24.04.2023 would be applicable retrospectively but only from 31.03.2023 meaning thereby, if the time limit of three years prescribed in sub Section 10 of Section 73 read with sub Section 1 of Section 44 expired prior to 31.03.2023 then the notification dated 24.04.2023 extending the time limit for passing of an order under sub Section 9 of Section 73 would not be applicable, apparently so. 8. Apparently the impugned orders are beyond the time limit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
