Background of the Case
The petitioner, engaged in the business of construction and sale of apartments, is a registered person under the GST Act. An assessment order was passed against him on 29.11.2021 for the tax periods covering 2017–2018 to 2020–2021.
Subsequently, on 15.02.2025, the revisional authority (1st respondent) passed an order under Section 74 of the GST Act confirming a huge demand —
CGST: Rs 75,80,786
SGST: Rs 75,80,786
along with applicable interest and penalty.
The petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition before the Court.
Arguments of the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel, Sri Anil Kumar Bezawada, argued that:
As per Section 108(2) of the GST Act, the limitation period for passing a revisional order is three years from the date of the order under revision.
Since the assessment order was passed on 29.11.2021, the revisional order ought to have been passed on or before 29.11.2024.
However, the order was passed on 15.02.2025, making it barred by limitation.
Arguments of the State
The State relied on the Supreme Court’s order dated 10.01.2022 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020, which had extended limitation periods due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Assistant Government Pleader argued that this extension should also apply to authorities exercising revisional powers, thereby validating the impugned order.
Court’s Findings
The Court referred to its earlier judgment dated 21.04.2025 in W.P.No.12529 of 2024, which had already considered similar arguments. After reviewing decisions of the Supreme Court (S. Kasi case), Calcutta High Court (Gobindo Das case), and Delhi High Court (Vikas WSP Ltd. case), the Court held that:
The extension of limitation granted by the Supreme Court applied only to litigants approaching judicial or quasi-judicial bodies.
It did not extend to authorities exercising revisional or administrative powers under the GST Act.
Accordingly, the Court found that the revisional order dated 15.02.2025 was beyond the prescribed limitation period under Section 108(2).
Decision
The Court set aside the revisional order and allowed the writ petition in favour of the petitioner, holding that the demand raised by the authorities was time-barred. No costs were imposed.
GST Case Law Gupthas Constructions Company Versus The Joint Commissioner
Citation-2025 TAXONATION 2176 (ANDHRA PRADESH) (Click here to read full Judgement)
CA Yaman Garg
SUBSCRIBE GST E-LIBRARY (INDIA'S HIGHEST GST CASE LAW DATA)
FOR MORE UPDATE ON GST/ IT JOIN OUR FREE WHATSAPP GROUP BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK https://chat.whatsapp.com/C8VB6F6VHme3A061UDQKhj
