9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 497X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yodhya: Uttar Pradesh under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. 3. This subject matter is covered by the judgment and order dated 06.02.2025 rendered in Writ Tax No. 57 of 2025 (M/s Anita Traders Lko. U.P. Thru Proprietor Aneeta Sharma vs. State of U.P. and another. The said judgment reads as under: "Heard Sri Pranjal Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sri Rajesh Tiwari, learned A.C.S.C. for the State. By means of this petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of Demand Order dated 02.12.2023 and Show Cause Notice dated 29.09.2023 issued consequent to it by the concerned opposite party under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The contention of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 10 of Section 73 of the U.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act, 2017) as they have been passed beyond the time limit prescribed therein as calculated from the due date of filing annual returns prescribed in Section 44 (1), which was extended to 05.02.2020 and the time limit of three years ended on 05.02.2023 but the impugned orders are dated 05.10.2024 and 02.12.2023, therefore, the impugned orders are without jurisdiction. 5. After hearing the parties, what comes out is that for justifying the time limit within which the impugned orders have been passed under Section 73 (9) and (10) of the Act, 2017 for the financial year 2017-18 reliance is being placed upon a notification dated 24.04.2023 by which the time limit of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsion of time limit notified by the Commissioner of Central tax shall be deemed to be notified by the Commissioner." 7. Ordinarily the due date for filing annual return is 31st December of the end of the Financial Year, which in the case of financial year 2017-18 would be 31.12.2018, however, this due date for filing annual return, as already observed earlier, was extended vide notification of the Central Board of Direct Taxes and Customs dated, 03.02.2018 to 05.02.2020 and this notification was adopted by the State of U.P. vide notification dated 05.02.2020. Based on this notification, the period of three years mentioned in sub Section 10 of Section 73 would end on 05.02.2023 meaning thereby, an order under sub Section 9 of Section 73 fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date was extended by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and Customs vide notification dated 03.02.2018, to 05.02.2020 and this notification was adopted by the State of U.P. vide notification dated 05.02.2020. Based on this notification, the period of three years mentioned in Sub Section 10 of Section 73 would end on 05.02.2023 meaning thereby, an order under Sub Section 9 of Section 73 for the financial year 2017-18 could have been passed by 05.02.2023 but not after it. Now the 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
