SC's COVID Limitation Exclusion Period Applies to Quasi-Judicial GST Proceedings.

SC’s COVID Limitation Exclusion Period Applies to Quasi-Judicial GST Proceedings.

Issue

Whether the suo motu order of the Supreme Court, which excluded the period from March 15, 2020, to February 28, 2022, for computing limitation, applies to quasi-judicial proceedings under the GST Act, such as the issuance of a demand notice under Section 73.

Facts

The appellant (taxpayer) filed a writ appeal against a Single Judge’s order (in the Tata Play Ltd. case).
The core dispute was whether the COVID-19 limitation exclusion, as directed by the Supreme Court, extended the time limit for the GST department to issue demand notices.
The appellant contended that the exclusion should not apply to GST adjudication proceedings.
The Single Judge had earlier rejected this plea, upholding the department’s right to the extended timeline.

Decision

The High Court dismissed the writ appeal, ruling in favour of the Revenue.
It held that the Supreme Court’s order in In re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation explicitly stated that the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 shall be excluded for the purpose of limitation.
The court noted that the Supreme Court’s direction expressly applied to “all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings under any general or special law.”
Since GST adjudication is a quasi-judicial proceeding, the appellant’s contention that it was not covered by this exclusion was found to have no merit.

Key Takeaways

The Supreme Court’s COVID-19 limitation exclusion (15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022) is not limited to courts; it explicitly applies to all “quasi-judicial proceedings.”
GST demand and adjudication proceedings under Section 73 or 74 are quasi-judicial proceedings and therefore get the benefit of this exclusion.
This ruling confirms that the statutory time limit for the department to issue Show Cause Notices under the GST Act is extended by this excluded period.
This decision is in favour of the Revenue, as it provides them with a longer statutory period to initiate proceedings for the tax periods affected by the pandemic.

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

Oasys Cybernetics (P). Ltd

State Tax Officer^*

M.S. Ramesh and R. SAKTHIVEL, JJ.

W.A.No.3080 of 2025

OCTOBER 17, 2025

G.Natarajan for the Appellant. Haja Nazirudeen, Addl. Adv. General, C.Harsha Raj, Special Govt. Pleader and V.Prashanth Kiran, Govt. Adv. for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

1. This Writ Appeal has been filed to set aside the order passed in Tata Play Ltd. v. Union of India (Madras)/W.P.No.37331 of 2024 dated 12.06.2025, read with the clarification issued on 14.07.2025, as the said orders are arbitrary against public policy and in violation of Articles 14 and 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

2. In Paragraph 9.57 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.17184 of 2024 etc., batch, the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners therein that the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, whereby the period between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022, stood excluded for the purposes of calculating limitation in respect of any judicial / quasi judicial proceedings, would cease to have effect with the introduction of Section 168A of the CGST / SGST Act and the issuance of Notification No.13 of 2022, were rejected.

3. In this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the limitation prescribed under Section 73 of the Act, would not apply to quasi judicial proceedings and that the same will apply only to the limitation for the litigants in various proceedings.

4. We do not endorse the submissions in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s clarification in its order passed in suo motu Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re ITR 722 (SC)/Writ Petition No.3 of 2020 dated 10.01.2022, which reads as follows:

“I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings.”

5. Thus, the only contention of the learned counsel in this appeal may not have merits in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s clarification, extending the exclusion of the limitation to quasi judicial proceedings, which includes the proceedings under Section 73 and 74 of the Act.

6. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.