Facts of the Case:
In this case, the principal ground of challenge was that the adjudication order had been issued beyond the statutory limitation period. The time limit for passing orders under Section 73 for FY 2019-20, as extended by the Government, expired on 31.08.2024.
The Department contended that the Proper Officer was simultaneously holding charge of two circles and was required to process a large number of time-bound adjudication orders before the deadline. According to the Department, the petitioner’s order had been prepared within the limitation period, but due to the volume of pending orders and the transition of the date from 31.08.2024 to 01.09.2024, coupled with the intervening public holiday, the order could only be uploaded on the GST portal on 02.09.2024.
The Department also disclosed in its counter affidavit that, based on documents subsequently furnished by the petitioner, the major disputed ITC pertained to import IGST paid on imported machinery and installation-related credits, and prima facie there appeared to be no substantial revenue loss on the principal issue.
Issue: Whether an adjudication order under Section 73 of the GST Act for FY 2019-20, uploaded and issued on 02.09.2024 after the expiry of the statutory limitation period on 31.08.2024, could be sustained in law on the ground that the adjudicating authority had substantially completed the order within time but was unable to upload it before the deadline due to administrative and technical constraints.
Held That:
The High Court held that the impugned Order-in-Original was barred by limitation and consequently suffered from a fundamental jurisdictional defect. The Court observed that the last date for passing orders under Section 73 for the relevant tax period was 31.08.2024, whereas the impugned order was admittedly issued and uploaded on 02.09.2024.
The explanation offered by the Department regarding heavy workload, dual charge of circles, administrative difficulties, and delayed portal uploading could not extend the statutory period of limitation or validate an order passed beyond the prescribed deadline. The Court emphasized that limitation is not a mere procedural requirement but goes to the root of the authority’s jurisdiction to determine tax liability. Once the statutory period expires, the power to pass an adjudication order ceases.
Consequently, an order passed after the limitation period is without jurisdiction and unenforceable in law. The Court further held that the appellate authority had failed to appreciate this jurisdictional infirmity while dismissing the appeal. Accordingly, both the Order-in-Original dated 02.09.2024 and the appellate order dated 23.02.2026 were set aside and the writ petition was allowed.
Case Name: M/s. Divya Textile Industries Versus The Assistant Commissioner, Vanasthalipuram-I Circle, Telangana. dated 08.06.2026
To read the complete judgement 2026 Taxo.online 1628
