– Johannes Voet

The law of limitation rests on public policy — the principle, traceable to ancient legal systems, that legal claims cannot remain open indefinitely. Its purpose is to secure certainty, finality, and repose in litigation, and to that end legislatures fix specific limitation periods in statutes so that disputes cannot stay pending forever. The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“CGST Act”) reflects the same principle: Sections 73 and 74 lay down clear procedural timelines for adjudicating tax demand notices.

Limitation disputes have taken on particular importance in the GST regime in recent years, given the interplay between the CGST Act’s statutory timelines and the extraordinary extensions the Government has granted — whether under Section 168A of the Act or through extended deadlines for filing annual returns.

Against this backdrop, the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in GR Infra Projects[1] and Tata Steel Limited[2] have reopened the debate on how limitation is computed under the GST framework. Both cases raise the question of whether the exclusion period granted by the Supreme Court in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation[3] should influence adjudication timelines under the CGST Act. The two Special Leave Petitions before the Court turned on the same issue: whether CGST authorities could mechanically invoke Section 74 to sidestep the Section 73 timeline, even absent any conclusive finding of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts.

In addressing that issue, the Court made certain unexpected observations on the limitation periods under Sections 73 and 74 — observations that have effectively reopened the window for issuing notices and orders under Section 74 for FY 2017-18 to FY 2019-20, years that taxpayers and consultants nationwide had long treated as closed. The rulings also appear to bear on the long-pending challenge to the notifications extending the Section 73 limitation period, pushing that period out even further than the extension the taxpayers themselves had challenged as excessive.

In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation

In 2020, as the country grappled with COVID-19, the Supreme Court, by its suo motu order dated 23.03.2020,[4] took cognizance of the difficulties litigants faced in filing petitions, applications, suits, appeals, and other proceedings within prescribed limitation periods. To prevent litigants from being prejudiced by circumstances beyond their control, the Court directed that limitation periods for such proceedings stand extended with effect from 15.03.2020. This relief continued through a series of orders, with the exclusion period ultimately extended up to 28.02.2022 [15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022] by the Court’s order dated 10.01.2022.

Limitation Under the CGST Act for Adjudication

Consistent with the goal of timely adjudication, Sections 73(10) and 74(10) require adjudication orders to be issued within three years and five years, respectively, of the due date for filing the annual return for the relevant financial year.

Section 168A[5] of the CGST Act empowers the Government, on the GST Council’s recommendation, to extend statutory time limits in exceptional circumstances. That such an express provision exists underscores that any departure from the prescribed limitation framework must rest on clear statutory authority.

Notifications Under Section 168A — Extension of the Section 73 Limitation

The Government invoked Section 168A through Notification No. 09/2023-Central Tax dated 31.03.2023, extending the deadline for passing orders under Section 73(10) for FY 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20. The CBIC further extended the deadline for FY 2018-19 and 2019-20 through Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28.12.2023. The resulting extended deadlines are set out below:

These notifications were challenged before various High Courts on the ground that the preconditions under Section 168A had not been satisfied. That challenge has since reached the Supreme Court and remains pending.[6]

The Supreme Court’s Order in GR Infra Projects and Judgment in Tata Steel

While deciding the narrow question of whether Section 74 was being invoked mechanically, the Supreme Court’s observations on the Section 73 and 74 limitation periods carry consequences few anticipated. The Court appears to have proceeded on the premise that the entire exclusion period directed in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation must be excluded when computing limitation under Section 73(10).

Because a substantial part of the limitation period for FY 2018-19 and 2019-20 overlapped with the exclusion period, the Court held that the deadline for completing adjudication under Section 73 stands correspondingly extended. Applying that reasoning, the limitation period under Section 73 works out as follows:

As the table shows, the original limitation period for these years had already been extended by Notification No. 9/2023 and Notification No. 56/2023. But the approach in GR Infra Projects and Tata Steel — factoring in the 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 exclusion period — extends the GST department’s runway well beyond even those notifications.

In effect, this interpretation gives the department a longer limitation period than the notifications themselves provide — placing it in a stronger position than it would occupy even if the notifications are ultimately upheld as valid.

A further consequence is that the rulings may render the pending challenge to Notifications No. 9/2023 and No. 56/2023 academic. Taxpayers who challenged those notifications on the ground that the department’s adjudication timelines could not be extended may now find themselves worse off, since the Court’s exclusion period grants the department an even longer runway than the notifications themselves ever did.

Nor is this confined to Sections 73 and 74 read together. If the department can rely on GR Infra Projects and Tata Steel to compute limitation under Section 74 on its own, proceedings already time-barred could be reopened. Applying that interpretation, the limitation period under Section 74 would look like this:

The Court’s observations on excluding the 15.03.2020–28.02.2022 period could open a wide door in GST adjudication. Read this way, the ruling risks unsettling the certainty and finality that Section 74 is meant to provide — reviving proceedings long regarded as time-barred and triggering fresh litigation over how limitation should be computed across financial years.

Does In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation Even Apply to the Revenue Department?

A closer reading of the orders in GR Infra Projects and Tata Steel suggests that certain critical material was not placed before the Court.

First, the pending challenge to Notifications No. 9/2023 and No. 56/2023 does not appear to have been brought to the Court’s attention.

Second, the Court was not apprised of CBIC Circular No. 157/13/2021-GST dated 20.07.2021. That circular, issued after the CBIC obtained a legal opinion on whether the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 order — and its reinstatement on 27.04.2021 — applied to GST proceedings, clarified that the exclusion would not apply to quasi-judicial proceedings before tax authorities, including refund applications, revocation of cancelled registrations, and adjudication of demand notices.

Third, the Court does not appear to have been referred to S. Kasi v. State,[7] where the Supreme Court had already clarified that the COVID-19 exclusion was meant to protect litigants, not to extend timelines for investigative authorities.

Conclusion

Taxpayers and consultants have largely welcomed the ruling on mechanical invocation of Section 74. But by altering the limitation framework under the CGST Act, GR Infra Projects and Tata Steel raise a real concern: the limitation period under Section 74 may now stand revived, generating fresh disputes over how limitation should be computed across financial years. More fundamentally, this risks diluting the very principle that limitation provisions exist to bring disputes to a definitive end — the maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium.[8]

In these circumstances, the petitioners in these cases would be well served by seeking a review of the observations in GR Infra Projects and Tata Steel — particularly on whether the COVID-19 exclusion period should extend to statutory timelines under the CGST Act — this time with the relevant material properly placed before the Court. It would also be worth examining whether these observations constitute binding ratio decidendi, or merely obiter dicta not intended to reshape the CGST Act’s limitation architecture.

*Abhishek Garg – Advocate on Record, Supreme Court & Managing Partner – AGS Legal

**Yash Gaiha – Principal Associate – AGS Legal

[1]M/s G.R. Infra Projects Limited, Ratlam v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. – Civil Appeal No. 11277 of 2026.

[2]M/s Tata Steel Limited v. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance & Ors. – SLP(C) No. 16859 of 2026.

[3]Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020.

[4]Order dated 23.03.2020 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020.

[5]Power of Government to extend time limits in special circumstances – inserted vide Section 7 of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, with effect from 31 March 2020.

[6]M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax – SLP (C) No. 4240 of 2025.

[7]S. Kasi v. State – (2021) 12 SCC 1.

[8]“It is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation” – see paragraph 9 of Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Association, (2005) 7 SCC 510.