No Extension of Time Limit Under Section 73(9) of CGST Act Without Force Majeure: Calcutta High Court
📌 Background of the Case
Mr. Amar Nath Jaiswal (“the Petitioner”) received a Show Cause Notice (SCN) concerning transactions during FY 2019–20. He responded by stating that purchases were made in good faith from suppliers whose registrations were later cancelled retrospectively. He submitted invoices, ledgers, and e-way bills to substantiate his claim.
Despite this, the Assistant Commissioner passed an order on August 28, 2024, under Section 73 of the West Bengal GST Act, beyond the time limit outlined in Section 73(10) of the CGST Act.
🧾 Legal Basis for Dispute
The Petitioner argued that:
- The extended timeline for annual return filing (under Notification No. 95/2020 and 04/2021) only applied to Section 44, not Section 73(9).
- Extension granted under Section 168A (through Notification No. 09/2023 and 56/2023) lacked justification, as no force majeure existed.
- Therefore, the Impugned Order violated statutory timelines and jurisdiction.
🧑⚖️ Court Observations
The Calcutta High Court made the following observations:
- The return-filing period was extended only until March 31, 2021, based on valid notifications under Section 44, not Section 73.
- The government had invoked Section 168A, which permits an extension only in special circumstances like war, epidemic, or natural disaster.
- The Court found no such force majeure condition applicable in the current case.
- The Respondent accepted explanations for two suppliers but denied ITC from one—Shree Shyam Iron Steel Trading Company—without valid reasoning.
- The order lacked justification and failed to address the Petitioner’s submissions adequately.
⚖️ Verdict
- The Court stayed the Impugned Order dated August 28, 2024, until further hearing.
- The next hearing is scheduled for April 28, 2025.
- The interim stay will continue until December 2025 or until further orders.
💬 Court’s Interpretation of Section 168A
Section 168A was introduced to handle extraordinary circumstances. It allows the government to extend deadlines only if compliance becomes impossible due to:
- Natural disasters
- Epidemics (e.g., COVID-19)
- Other severe disruptions
The Calcutta HC emphasized that arbitrary use of Section 168A—without genuine force majeure—is invalid.
🏛️ Related Case: Madras High Court’s View
In Tvl. N.V.R. Sons v. Union of India [W.P.(MD) No. 9947 of 2025], the Madras High Court upheld the use of Section 168A for AY 2018–19, citing exceptional circumstances. However, the court stressed that such powers must be used carefully, in line with the Constitution and natural justice.
🧠 Our Analysis
This judgment reinforces that Section 73(9) has a strict time limitation. Authorities cannot extend it arbitrarily under Section 168A without proving force majeure. This provides relief to taxpayers and prevents misuse of powers under the GST framework.
🔚 Conclusion
The case sets an important precedent on judicial scrutiny of limitation extensions under the CGST Act. Taxpayers and practitioners should take note of the conditions for valid extensions and stay updated on judicial developments affecting GST proceedings.
