Rinkumoni Bordoloi vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 Ors.

Held

The Court held that the order-in-original dated 04.05.2024 was passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 73(10) of both the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court noted that there was no Notification issued under Section 168A of the said Acts extending the period for passing such orders beyond 30.04.2024 for the financial year 2018-19. Consequently, the impugned order, having been passed after the expiry of the statutory period, was deemed to be without jurisdiction. The ratio decidendi is that statutory time limits for passing orders under GST laws must be strictly adhered to, and any order passed beyond these limits, without a valid extension, is void ab initio. The Court set aside and quashed the impugned order. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Rinkumoni Bordoloi, challenged an order-in-original dated 04.05.2024, passed under Section 73(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that this order was passed beyond the period of limitation stipulated in Section 73(10) of both Acts. Specifically, the petitioner argued that for the financial year 2018-19, the order should have been passed within three years from the due date of filing the annual return, and no extension beyond 30.04.2024 was granted. The respondents, including the Union of India, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, the Goods and Services Tax Council, and state tax authorities, were represented by their respective counsels.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order-in-original dated 04.05.2024, passed under Section 73(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is barred by limitation as provided under Section 73(10) of the said Acts for the financial year 2018-19? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that Section 73(10) mandates that an order under Section 73(9) must be passed within three years from the due date of filing the annual return. For the financial year 2018-19, the impugned order dated 04.05.2024 was passed beyond the permissible period, as there was no extension granted beyond 30.04.2024. Therefore, the order is without jurisdiction. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue or state respondents regarding the limitation period. The court's decision appears to be based on its own assessment of the statutory provisions and the facts presented.