Time-Barred SCN Vitiates Proceedings: Gauhati HC Quashes GST Order, Allows Writ Despite Appeal Remedy [Read Order]
The Court allowed writ petition ruling limitation under Section 73(1) is jurisdictional fact, not mere procedure.
![Time-Barred SCN Vitiates Proceedings: Gauhati HC Quashes GST Order, Allows Writ Despite Appeal Remedy [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2026/05/06/2135617-time-barred-scn-vitiates-proceedings-site-image-2jpg.webp "Time-Barred SCN Vitiates Proceedings: Gauhati HC Quashes GST Order, Allows Writ Despite Appeal Remedy [Read Order]")
The Gauhati High Court quashed the service tax demand order, holding that limitation bars jurisdiction, and allowed the Writ overriding appeal remedy. The court held that the Goods and Services Tax Show cause notice (SCN) issued was time-barred and it ultimately vitiated the proceedings. The petitioner is the Proprietorship firm M/s Mahesh Kumar Chanani (Hojai, Assam), engaged...
The Gauhati High Court quashed the service tax demand order, holding that limitation bars jurisdiction, and allowed the Writ overriding appeal remedy. The court held that the Goods and Services Tax Show cause notice (SCN) issued was time-barred and it ultimately vitiated the proceedings.
The petitioner is the Proprietorship firm M/s Mahesh Kumar Chanani (Hojai, Assam), engaged in works contracts, challenged Order-in-Original dated 24.04.2024 by Asst. Commissioner CGST Guwahati Division-II confirmed ₹26.57 lakh service tax demand for FY 2016-17 under Finance Act, 1994. The Firm claimed services as exempt under the Mega Exemption Notification and responded to the SCN dated 11.04.2022.
The counsel for the petitioner submits that the very issuance of the Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice is ex facie barred by limitation as prescribed under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. It is contended that once the notice itself is time-barred, the entire proceedings stand vitiated, rendering the adjudicating order a nullity in the eyes of law.
Per contra, the respondent CGST has raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability, contending that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, and therefore ought to be relegated to the appellate forum.
Justice Kaushik Goswami observed that “The distinction between the normal period and the extended period is also not cosmetic. The extended period can be invoked only upon satisfaction of stringent jurisdictional facts, namely fraud, suppression, or wilful misstatement with intent to evade tax.”
The Court allowed writ petition ruling limitation under Section 73(1) is jurisdictional fact, not mere procedure relying in Calcutta Discount Co. AIR 1961 SC 372; State of Punjab (2007) and held that SCN beyond limitation divested authority of power, rendering order non est; no bar to Article 226 interference for wholly without-jurisdiction proceedings.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
