M/S SHREE RADHA RAMAN ENTERPRISES THRU. PROPRIETOR AMIT SINGHversusSTATE OF UP THRU. PRIN. SECY. DEPTT. OF STATE TAX LKO. AND ANOTHER

               Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18567-DB

Court No. - 2

Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 283 of 2025

Petitioner :- M/S Shree Radha Raman Enterprises Thru.
Proprietor Amit Singh
Respondent :- State Of Up Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of State
Tax Lko. And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravindra Gupta
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.

1. Heard Sri Pranjal Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Sri
Ravindra Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Siddharth Dhawan, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged ex-
parte demand order dated 15.12.2023 relating to the assessment
year 2017-18 issued by Deputy Commissioner State Tax
Jurisdiction, Lucknow Sector-21, Lucknow (C), Uttar Pradesh
under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh State Goods & Service
Tax Act, 2017 (in short 'the Act, 2017').

3. This subject matter is covered by the judgment and order
dated 06.02.2025 rendered in Writ Tax No. 57 of 2025 (M/s
Anita Traders Lko. U.P. Thru Proprietor Aneeta Sharma vs.
State of U.P. and another. The said judgment reads as under:

"Heard Sri Pranjal Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sri
Rajesh Tiwari, learned A.C.S.C. for the State.

By means of this petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of Demand
Order dated 02.12.2023 and Show Cause Notice dated 29.09.2023 issued
consequent to it by the concerned opposite party under Section 73 of the
Uttar Pradesh State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.

The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the notices are time
bound. He relies upon an order dated 12.11.2024 passed by us in Writ Tax
No.264/2024, wherein similar issued was considered. The said order reads
as under:-

"1. Supplementary affidavit on behalf of petitioner and short counter
affidavit on behalf of State filed today are taken on record.

2. Heard Shri Anuj Kudesia, learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State as also Shri
Akhilesh Kumar, Deputy Commissioner, State G.S.T., Lucknow, who is
present before this Court.
3. The present writ petition has been filed with the following reliefs:-

"i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing
the order on Form GST DRC-13 dated 05.10.2024 issued by Deputy
Commissioner, State Tax, Sector 05, Lucknow contained as annexure no. 1
to this writ petition.

ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing
the assessment order and DRC-07 dated 02.12.2023 issued by Deputy
Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-5, Lucknow contained as annexure no. 2
to this writ petition.

iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents to direct the petitioner bank to de-freeze the
two bank accounts operated petitioners i.e. account No. 7711564951 and
Accout No. 9946014812 in Kotak Mahindra Bank. "

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
impugned orders are barred by sub Section 10 of Section 73 of the
U.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act, 2017) as they
have been passed beyond the time limit prescribed therein as calculated
from the due date of filing annual returns prescribed in Section 44 (1),
which was extended to 05.02.2020 and the time limit of three years ended
on 05.02.2023 but the impugned orders are dated 05.10.2024 and
02.12.2023, therefore, the impugned orders are without jurisdiction.

5. After hearing the parties, what comes out is that for justifying the time
limit within which the impugned orders have been passed under Section
73 (9) and (10) of the Act, 2017 for the financial year 2017-18 reliance is
being placed upon a notification dated 24.04.2023 by which the time limit
of three years mentioned in sub Section 10 of Section 73 was extended for
the financial year 2017-18 upto 31.12.2023, however, what is being
omitted from consideration by the opposite party is that this notification
dated 24.04.2023 has been given retrospective effect only from 31.03.2023
and not prior to it, now, in this context we may refer to Section 73 (10) of
the Act, 2017, which reads as under:-

"(10) The proper officer shall issue the order under sub-section (9) within
three years from the due date for furnishing of annual return for the
financial year to which the tax not paid or short paid or input tax credit
wrongly availed or utilised relates to or within three years from the date of
erroneous refund."

6. We may also refer to Section 44(1) of the Act, 2017, which reads as
under:-

"44. Annual return -(1) Every registered person, other than an Input
Service Distributor, a person paying tax under section 51 or section 52, a
casual taxable person and a non-resident taxable person, shall furnish an
annual return for every financial year electronically in such form and
manner as may be prescribed on or before the thirty-first day of December
following the end of such financial year.

Provided that the Commissioner may, on the recommendations of the
Council and for reasons to be recorded in writing, by notification, extend
the time limit for furnishing the annual return for such class of registered
persons as may be specified therein:

Provided further that any extension of time limit notified by the
Commissioner of Central tax shall be deemed to be notified by the
Commissioner."

7. Ordinarily the due date for filing annual return is 31st December of the
end of the Financial Year, which in the case of financial year 2017-18
would be 31.12.2018, however, this due date for filing annual return, as
already observed earlier, was extended vide notification of the Central
Board of Direct Taxes and Customs dated, 03.02.2018 to 05.02.2020 and
this notification was adopted by the State of U.P. vide notification dated
05.02.2020. Based on this notification, the period of three years
mentioned in sub Section 10 of Section 73 would end on 05.02.2023
meaning thereby, an order under sub Section 9 of Section 73 for the
financial year 2017-18 could have been passed by 05.02.2023 but not
after it. Now the opposite parties are relying on the notification dated
24.04.2023 to submit that in fact they could have passed the order under
sub Section 9 of Section 73 uptill 31.12.2023 however in doing so, they
omit to consider para no. 2 of the said notification which says that the
notification dated 24.04.2023 would be applicable retrospectively but only
from 31.03.2023 meaning thereby, if the time limit of three years
prescribed in sub Section 10 of Section 73 read with sub Section 1 of
Section 44 expired prior to 31.03.2023 then the notification dated
24.04.2023 extending the time limit for passing of an order under sub
Section 9 of Section 73 would not be applicable, apparently so.

8. Apparently the impugned orders are beyond the time limit prescribed
under sub Section 10 of Section 73 as applicable for the financial year
2017-18 and therefore the impugned orders are beyond jurisdiction being
barred by the time provided in the said provision, therefore, we allow the
writ petition and quash the impugned orders dated 05.10.2024 and
02.12.2023 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector 05,
Lucknow.

9. Consequences shall follow, accordingly. The accounts of the petitioner
which have been freezed shall be de-freezed. "

As would be apparent from a reading of the said order, the due date for
filing annual return in the case of financial year 2017-18 was 31.12.2018,
however, this due date was extended by the Central Board of Direct Taxes
and Customs vide notification dated 03.02.2018, to 05.02.2020 and this
notification was adopted by the State of U.P. vide notification dated
05.02.2020. Based on this notification, the period of three years
mentioned in Sub Section 10 of Section 73 would end on 05.02.2023
meaning thereby, an order under Sub Section 9 of Section 73 for the
financial year 2017-18 could have been passed by 05.02.2023 but not
after it. Now the opposite parties are relying on the notification dated
24.04.2023 to submit that in fact they could have passed the order under
sub Section 9 of Section 73 uptill 31.12.2023 however in doing so, they
omit to consider para no. 2 of the said notification which says that the
notification dated 24.04.2023 would be applicable retrospectively but only
from 31.03.2023 meaning thereby, if the time limit of three years
prescribed in sub Section 10 of Section 73 read with sub Section 1 of
Section 44 expired prior to 31.03.2023 then the notification dated
24.04.2023 extending the time limit for passing of an order under sub
                                         Section 9 of Section 73 would not be applicable, apparently so.

                                         In view of the order dated 12.11.2024 passed by us in Writ Tax
                                         No.264/2024, which could not be disputed by Sri Rajesh Tiwari, learned
                                         A.C.S.C. for the State and considering the fact that in this case the
                                         Assessment Order was passed on 02.12.2023, which could not have been
                                         passed as it was barred by the said provision, we allow the writ petition
                                         and quash the impugned orders dated 02.12.2023 and 29.09.2023 passed
                                         by the Assistant Commissioner, Lucknow Sector-20, Lucknow.

                                         Consequences shall follow accordingly."

                                         4. It has been held in the said judgment that an order under sub-
                                         Section 9 of Section 73 pertaining to financial year 2017-18
                                         could have been passed by 05.02.2023 but not thereafter. The
                                         notification dated 24.04.2023 has been considered and the
                                         contention that such an order could have been passed till
                                         31.03.2023 has been repelled for the reasons given therein.
                                         Now, in the case at hand the order under sub-Section 9 of
                                         Section 73 has been passed on 15.12.2023, therefore, it is
                                         clearly time barred. This matter is squarely covered by our
                                         judgment dated 06.02.2025 (supra). We, therefore, allow the
                                         writ petition and quash the impugned order/notice dated
                                         15.12.2023. Consequences shall follow accordingly.

                                         5. Before parting, we need to mention that in para 3 of the order
                                         dated 06.02.2025 while noticing the contention of petitioner's
                                         counsel the words 'time bound' have been incorrectly
                                         mentioned, it should be 'time barred'. The said order shall be
                                         treated as corrected and clarified accordingly and will apply to
                                         this case also.



                                                                 (Om Prakash Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)

                                         Order Date :- 3.4.2025
                                         Shanu/-




Digitally signed by :-
SHANU SUMAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench