Limitation in Tax Litigation: When Time Spent in Other Proceedings is Excluded

Limitations decide whether a tax case survives. A strong case fails if the appeal, reassessment, rectification or other proceeding reaches the forum after the statutory period. At the same time, every day is not counted in the same way.

Time spent in another proceeding is excluded only where the law grants that benefit, where a court grants that benefit, or where a later order creates a fresh starting point for limitation. Exclusion is not automatic. It rests on a clear legal basis.

Stay period does not count

In VLS Finance Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, the Supreme Court held that the operative period of an interim stay order had to be excluded while computing limitation under Section 158BE(2) of the Income Tax Act. The assessment could not move during the stay. That blocked period stood outside limitation.

This principle has direct value in practice. Where an assessment, reassessment or adjudication remains frozen because of a court order, the professional must isolate the exact stay period and compute limitation after removing that block of time. The protection flows from legal impossibility, not from equity.

Time spent in writ proceedings

In M J Gold case, the Kerala High Court dealt with a case where the taxpayer first filed a writ petition and later moved to the appellate remedy. The writ petition had been filed within the appeal period and the condonable period. The High Court protected the assessee’s right to file the appeal and directed exclusion of the period from 15.03.2024 to 15.05.2024 while computing limitation.

This case states a firm rule. Filing a writ petition does not stop limitation by itself. Exclusion follows only when the High Court grants that protection.

The same line of reasoning also appears in Jain Housing and Constructions Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner, where the High Court directed that the time spent in pursuing the writ petition would not be counted for limitation while the assessee pursued the statutory appellate remedy. This strengthens the practical point for professionals: when the High Court sends the party to the statutory forum, the party must seek an express protective direction on limitation. Without that direction, the appeal will face a limitation objection.

Rectification order as fresh starting point

In Mount Velour Rubber Works (P) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner, the Kerala High Court held that limitation for filing a GST appeal under Section 107 had to run from the date of the rectification order, which was 19.07.2023. The Court treated the rectification order as the relevant trigger for limitation. Where rectification changes the legal position, limitation runs from that later order.

This distinction is important. Every case does not involve exclusion of a block period. In some cases, the real issue is the starting point itself. If the operative order is the rectified order, limitation must be counted from that order. For professionals drafting appeals, this difference between “exclusion” and “fresh commencement” requires precision.

Delayed receipt of order

In Harshin Enterprises v. Joint Commissioner (Appeals), the appellate order bore the date 29.12.2022, but the taxpayer showed that it was dispatched on 01.02.2024 and received on 08.02.2024. The Kerala High Court directed the authority to consider the rectification application after hearing the taxpayer. This case shows that limitation does not rest only on the date typed on the order. Service of the order matters.

For tax professionals, this is a strong compliance lesson. Portal screenshots, dispatch records, email trails, acknowledgment slips, and covering letters are not routine documents. They often decide the limitation issue. If service is delayed, the record must prove it.

Court protection for rectification

In Bright Communications v. Joint Commissioner of Central Tax andCentral Excise, the assessee had not filed a reply to the show cause notice and had not filed a statutory appeal. The Kerala High Court still allowed the assessee to move a rectification application to correct factual mistakes in the adjudication order and directed the authority to consider it by waiving limitation.

This case shows another route through which limitation relief enters tax litigation. The court did not rewrite the statute. It protected the rectification route on the facts of the case. For professionals, the lesson is clear. Where the dispute concerns an apparent factual error in the adjudication order, the remedy strategy must examine rectification as well as appeal.

When exclusion is refused

The courts also refuse exclusion where no legal basis exists. In Abhinav Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, the Delhi High Court refused to give the Revenue extra time for issuing a fresh reassessment notice. The Court held that no stay order had blocked the department from acting within time. The department’s own failure in the earlier round did not stop limitation. Earlier litigation, by itself, did not save the Revenue.

A defective proceeding does not suspend limitation. The earlier step must itself be valid in law before any exclusion can be claimed on that basis.

Practical takeaway for professionals

Time spent in another proceeding is excluded only where the statute says so, where a court says so, where a later order resets the limitation trigger or where delayed service changes the real starting point. Outside these grounds, limitation runs in full.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates