Limitation
6 articles
An Order Filed in the Wrong Portal Tab Is Not Communicated: Bombay High Court Revives a Time-Barred GST Appeal in Elster Metering
A Section 73 adjudication order was uploaded in the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab of the GST portal and the appeal against it was rejected as late. The Bombay High Court held that filing returns on the portal does not show knowledge of an order placed in the wrong tab, and revived the appeal.
13 min readSeven Days Means Seven Days: Calcutta High Court Quashes Section 129 Penalty Orders Passed 175 Days Late on Two Detained Lorries
Two lorries hired out to a transporter were detained in July 2025 and the penalty orders came in January 2026. The Calcutta High Court held that the seven-day period for the order in Section 129(3) had run out on 24 July 2025, that nothing paused it, and that the orders were barred by limitation and without jurisdiction.
14 min readThe Date on the Notice, Not the Date on the Form: Delhi High Court on Limitation Under Section 74(2) and 74(10) and Forms GST DRC-01 and DRC-07
Two writ petitions argued that a show cause notice and an order were time-barred because the electronic summary forms carried later dates. The Delhi High Court rejects the argument on the statute and Rule 142, and sends the fraud and ITC grounds to the appellate authority under Section 107.
13 min readSupreme Court: A Section 28A Compensation Claim Runs From the Reference Court's Award, Not From an Appeal That Merely Repeats an Earlier One
In New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Rajveer Singh, the Supreme Court rejected a Section 28A claim filed after a second appellate order that simply followed an earlier appellate enhancement in the same village, holding that the three-month limitation had already run from the first enhancement and could not be revived by a later order adding nothing new.
13 min readVoluntary Deposit, Not a Time-Barred Demand: Delhi High Court Upholds a Customs Settlement Commission's Appropriation of Duty Beyond the Section 28 Limitation Period
An importer of confectionery items voluntarily deposited over ₹85 lakh during a DRI investigation into under-invoicing, and its proprietor admitted the full differential duty liability and asked that the deposit be adjusted against it. When the Settlement Commission later appropriated part of that deposit towards duty for a period beyond the Customs Act's five-year extended limitation period, the importer cried foul. The Delhi High Court dismissed the challenge, holding that Section 28 bars the Revenue's power to raise a fresh demand after the limitation period, but does not bar the appropriation of an amount the importer had already, voluntarily and without qualification, admitted was owed and asked to have adjusted.
12 min readA Forty-Year-Old Land Title Cannot Be Reopened by Recasting the Dispute as Encroachment, Supreme Court Holds
A department reopened a forty-year-old land record on the strength of a third-party complaint that a lake was being encroached upon. The Supreme Court held that framing the dispute as one of public interest does not let a revenue authority sidestep a statutory limitation period that had expired decades earlier.
13 min read