2026-VIL-1236-DEL
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-1236-DEL

SGST High Court Cases

GST - Limitation for issuance of SCN under Section 73(2) of CGST Act - The SCN was made available on the common portal only after the last date permitted under the extended time limit - Respondents contended that SCN was generated within time on an internal system and was re-uploaded due to a technical glitch during migration - Whether an SCN made available on the portal after the statutory deadline is time-barred when the Respondents claim that it was generated within time - HELD - The limit for passing the order under Section 73(10) is the outer boundary and the SCN has to be issued at least three months before it as per Section 73(2). The period of three months is a minimum statutory limitation intended to afford a meaningful opportunity to reply and be heard, and it is not merely a directory timeline. The time limit for passing the order was extended by the Notification No. 56/2023-central tax dated 28.12.2023 and the SCN was required to be issued on or before the end of May 2024 - A notice that remains on an internal system, awaiting confirmation and without a Common Reference Number, was never communicated to the Petitioner and cannot be said to have been issued in the eyes of law, as issuance under Section 73(2) must be read together with the mode of service under Section 169 - The re-issuance of the SCN is an acknowledgment that the earlier notice had not become effective, and the remark on the re-uploaded notice cannot confer retrospective effect on it. No provision empowers the proper officer to extend the limit - The Respondents made no endeavour to serve the SCN by any other mode provided under Section 169(1), and they cannot take shelter behind a technical glitch of their own system. The consequences of administrative lapses cannot be visited upon the taxpayer nor can they enlarge a limitation fixed in mandatory terms - The SCN is barred by limitation, the consequential Order-in-Original does not sustain, both are quashed. The writ petition is allowed - Effect of scrutiny communication and personal hearings on limitation for SCN - The Respondents contended that the Petitioner was issued Form ASMT-10 and granted personal hearings but failed to respond - Whether the issuance of ASMT-10 and the grant of personal hearings can substitute the SCN or cure the delay in its issuance - HELD - Scrutiny of returns under Section 61 and the communications in Form ASMT-10 are preliminary steps, and the personal hearings are procedural formalities. They are not a substitute for the SCN, which is the foundational document triggering adjudication under Section 73 and must set out the specific charge and the quantum of demand. These steps cannot act as a bypass to the mandatory requirement of issuing the SCN within the prescribed time. The alleged non-response of the Petitioner is irrelevant to the question of limitation, which goes to the root of jurisdiction. It cannot be construed as a waiver, and a breach of the time limit cannot be cured by subsequent participation or by equitable considerations - The contention of the Respondents is rejected.
Download File
show more Judgements  

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Dr. G. Gokul Kishore

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GST Adjudication & Appeals Reform
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Security-Code
New Code?

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Security-Code
New Code?

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?