Assam GST Demand Order Set Aside as Time-Barred and Issued in Violation of Principles of Natural Justice

By | August 14, 2026
0 Comment
Assam GST Demand Order Set Aside as Time-Barred and Issued in Violation of Principles of Natural Justice

Issue

  1. Whether a demand order passed under Section 73 of the Assam GST Act for FY 2018–19 on 30.04.2024 is time-barred in the absence of a State notification extending the limitation period under Section 168A.
  2. Whether a demand order passed without offering an opportunity of personal hearing under Section 75(4) and failing to conform to a speaking order under Section 75(6) is legally sustainable.

Facts

  • An adjudication order dated 30.04.2024 was passed under the Assam GST Act for FY 2018–19, imposing tax, interest, and penalty on the assessee.
  • The statutory deadline under Section 73(10) to pass an adjudication order under Section 73(9) for FY 2018–19 expired on 31.12.2023.
  • The State of Assam had not issued any notification under Section 168A extending the limitation period for FY 2018–19 beyond 01.04.2024.
  • The order was passed without granting the assessee an opportunity of personal hearing under Section 75(4).
  • The order also failed to meet the requirements of a speaking order as prescribed under Section 75(6).
  • The assessee filed a writ petition challenging the demand order on grounds of statutory limitation and breach of natural justice.

Decision

  • Order Time-Barred [In favour of assessee]: The High Court held that in the absence of a State notification under Section 168A extending time, the statutory period under Section 73(10) for FY 2018–19 ended on 31.12.2023, making the order dated 30.04.2024 time-barred.
  • Breach of Natural Justice [In favour of assessee]: The Court held that passing an order without providing an opportunity of personal hearing under Section 75(4) and without adhering to the format under Section 75(6) vitiated the entire adjudication.
  • Demand Order Quashed: The impugned adjudication order dated 30.04.2024 was set aside and quashed.

Key Takeaways

  • Strict Adherence to Limitation: Tax authorities cannot pass adjudication orders beyond the statutory period specified in Section 73(10) unless a valid extension notification under Section 168A is explicitly issued by the State.
  • Mandatory Right to Hearing: Granting an opportunity of personal hearing under Section 75(4) is a mandatory statutory requirement whenever an adverse order is contemplated against a taxpayer.
  • Requirement of a Speaking Order: Orders determining tax liability must conform to Section 75(6) by providing proper reasoning and a detailed basis for the demand.
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Brahmaputra Tele Productions (P.) Ltd.
v.
Union of India
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
WP(C) 2848 of 2024 †
JULY  29, 2026
Ms. S. Sarkar, Adv. for the Petitioner. S. C. Keyal, B. Choudhury, SCs and K. Jain, Adv. for the Respondent.
JUDGMENT
1. Heard Ms. S. Sarkar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. S. C. Keyal, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. K. Jain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. I have also heard Mr. B. Choudhury, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4.
2. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 30.04.2024 for the Financial Year 2018-2019 whereby the Petitioner has been imposed an amount of tax to the tune of Rs.36,86,748/- along with interest and penalty.
3. It is the case of the Petitioner that the said order dated 30.04.2024 cannot be said to be an order passed in terms with Section 73 of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the State Act’) inasmuch as the order is not inconsonance with Section 75 of the State Act.
4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the said order is also beyond the period of limitation so provided in terms with Section 73(10) of the State Act inasmuch as, there was no notification issued in terms with Section 168A of the State Act thereby enlarging the period of limitation. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that though the Central Government had issued a Notification bearing No.56/2023-Central Tax dated 28.12.2023, but the same cannot be applied qua the State Act and additionally the said Notification bearing No.56/2023-Central Tax dated 28.12.2023 have already been set aside by this Court in the case of Barkataki Print and Media Services v. Union of India 90 GSTL 162/106 GST 348 (Gauhati)/(2025) 139 GSTR 602 (Gauhati).
5. This Court has heard the learned counsels for the parties and has duly perused the materials on record.
6. In the judgment of this Court in the case of Barkataki Print and Media Services (supra), this Court had observed at Paragraph No.50 that the State of Assam have not issued any pari materia notification for the period on or after 1st April, 2024 for the Financial year 2018-19 and for the period on or after 1st July, 2024 for the Financial Year 2019-20.
7. This Court further takes note of that the period of limitation as stipulated in Section 73(10) of the State Act for passing an order under Section 73(9) of the State Act for the Financial Year 2018-19 ended on 31.12.2023.
8. Taking into account that the impugned order in the instant proceedings for the Financial Year 2018-19 was passed on 30.04.2024, the impugned order dated 30.04.2024 is contrary to the provisions of Section 73 of the State Act and as such cannot be sustained in law.
9. In addition to that, this Court also duly takes note of that Section 75 of the State Act and more particularly Sub-Section (6) of Section 75 of the State Act which makes it clear as to how the order has to be drawn up. In the instant case, a perusal of the impugned order dated 30.04.2024 would show that the said order under no circumstances can be said to be an order drawn up in terms with Section 75(6) of the State Act. The said order was also passed without providing any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner which is also the mandate in terms with Section 75(4) of the State Act.
10. Consequently, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the impugned order dated 30.04.2024 which is assailed in the instant proceedings and enclosed as Annexure-XIII to the instant petition cannot be sustained in law.
11. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions:
(i) The impugned order dated 30.04.2024 passed for the Financial Year 2018-19 is in violation to Section 73 as well as Section 75 of the State Act. Accordingly, the same is set aside and quashed.
(ii) Interim order passed if any, stands vacated.