Limitation Period in Sections 107(1) and 107(4) of CGST Act to Be Interpreted as Period of 90 Days and 30 Days Respectively | HC

  • Blog|News|GST & Customs|
  • 2 Min Read
  • By Taxmann
  • |
  • Last Updated on 17 February, 2025

Recent Posts

Blog, Advisory, Company Law

Taxmann’s Analysis | SEBI Amends LODR Regulations – Tightens Governance Norms for HVDLEs and SMEs

Blog, News, GST & Customs

Order to Be Set Aside as Assessee’s Explanation for Mismatch in GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B Was Dismissed Without Proper Reasoning | HC

Latest from Taxmann

Limitation Period under Section 107 of CGST Act

Case Details: Brand Protection Services (P.) Ltd. vs. State of Bihar - [2025] 171 taxmann.com 318 (Patna)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Rajeev Ranjan Prasad & Ramesh Chand Malviya, JJ.
  • Anubhav Khowala, Adv. for the Petitioner.
  • Vivek Prasad, GP-7 for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The assessee, a private limited company registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) was issued a demand notice under Section 73(9) following assessment proceedings. Aggrieved by the demand order, the assessee filed an appeal before the appellate authority beyond the prescribed three-month period but within the additional condonable one-month period. The appellate authority, however, dismissed the appeal and the assessee filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court, contending that the appellate authority had erroneously interpreted the prescribed timeline.

High Court Held

The Honourable High Court noted that the appellate authority erred in its strict interpretation of the limitation period under Section 107 of the CGST Act since period of three months mentioned in section 107(1) and period of one month under section 107(4) is to be interpreted as period of 90 days and 30 days respectively or actual number of days in a calendar month. Consequently, the rejection of the appeal was set aside, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration on merits.

List of Cases Reviewed

  • Saketh India Ltd. v. India Securities Ltd. (1999) 3 SCC 1
  • SIL Import, USA v. Exim Aides Silk Exporters (1999) 4 SCC 567
  • Haru Das Gupta v. State of W.B. (1972) 1 SCC 639
  • Tarun Prasad Chatterjee v. Dinanath Sharma (2000) 8 SCC 649
  • Assam Urban Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Subash Projects & Mktg. Ltd. (2012) 2 SCC 624
  • Bibi Salma Khatoon v. State of Bihar (2001) 7 SCC 19 (para 30) followed.

List of Cases Referred to

  • State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. v. Himachal Techno Engineers and Anr. (2010) 12 SCC 210 (para 7)
  • Bibi Salma Khatoon v. State of Bihar (2001) 7 SCC 197 (para 7)
  • Econ Antri Limited v. Rom Industries Limited and Anr. (2014) 11 SCC 769 (para 7)
  • State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer @ Kalika Singh & Ors. (2003) 5 SCC 448 (para 11)
  • Saketh India Ltd. v. India Securities Ltd. (1999) 3 SCC 1 (para 17), SIL Import
  • USA v. Exim Aides Silk Exporters (1999) 4 SCC 567 (para 18)
  • Haru Das Gupta v. State of W.B. (1972) 1 SCC 639 (para 18)
  • Tarun Prasad Chatterjee v. Dinanath Sharma (2000) 8 SCC 649 (para 19)
  • Engineers Ltd. (supra ) referred Assam Urban Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Subash Projects & Mktg. Ltd. reported in (2012) 2 SCC 624 (para 26).

Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

«
»

Everything on Tax and Corporate Laws of India

To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com

Author: Taxmann

Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.

The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:

  • The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
  • All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
  • Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
  • Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
  • All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
  • The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
  • Font and size that's easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied