M. Motors & Anr. v. The Senior Joint Commissioner of Revenue, Berhampore Circle, WBGST & Ors. { 2026 (7) TMI 984}
Facts: The adjudicating authority digitally signed the GST demand order within the limitation period prescribed under Section 73 of the CGST Act. However, the order was communicated/served on the taxpayer after the expiry of the limitation period.
Issue: Whether an order under Section 73 becomes time-barred merely because it was served or communicated to the taxpayer after the limitation period, despite having been issued within the prescribed time.
Held: The Calcutta High Court held that the requirement under Section 73 is that the order must be issued within the prescribed limitation period. Its subsequent service or communication does not render the order time-barred. The Court distinguished issuance of an order from its service, while noting that the limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date of communication of the order
