Defining the Timeline: Delhi HC Clarifies Limitation Rules Under the CGST Act

In a significant ruling for tax practitioners and corporate assessees, the Delhi High Court has clarified the calculation of statutory limitation periods under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. The bench, comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, dismissed a petition filed by Tata Play Ltd , affirming that the three-month window for issuing a Show Cause Notice (SCN) refers to "calendar months" rather than a fixed count of 90 days.

The Conflict: Limitation and Procedure

The dispute arose from an impugned SCN issued on November 30, 2024, regarding Input Tax Credit (ITC) discrepancies for the tax period of April 2020 to March 2021. Tata Play Ltd challenged the subsequent demand order of Rs. 5.63 crore, arguing that the proceedings were barred by limitation. The petitioner contended that, as the outer limit for passing the final order was February 28, 2025, the SCN should have been issued three months prior—no later than November 28, 2024.

Furthermore, the company alleged a violation of the principles of natural justice, citing a technical "glitch" on the GST portal that hindered their ability to properly signal a request for a personal hearing.

Arguments from the Bar

Representing Tata Play, Senior Counsel Gautam Narayan relied heavily on the precedent of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in M/s Cotton Corporation of India v. Assistant Commissioner , which suggested that any deviation from the statutory timeline renders a notice "otiose." The petitioner insisted that the statutory requirement of three months must be treated as a strict, mandatory period to protect taxpayer rights.

The Respondent-Department countered that the limitation period refers to three calendar months. Citing the House of Lords judgment in Dodds v. Walker , counsel argued that the period ends on the corresponding date in the third subsequent month. Consequently, an SCN issued on November 30, 2024, is legally valid for an order due on February 28, 2025.

Legal Analysis: The Calendar Month Rule

The High Court rejected the petitioner’s reliance on the 90-day calculation, distinguishing it from the "calendar month" definition established by the Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Himachal Techno Engineers .

Justice Prathiba M. Singh noted that the definition of a "month" under the General Clauses Act is governed by the British calendar. Therefore, the period of three months is determined by counting three calendar months (December, January, and February), confirming that the SCN was issued within the legal window. The Court further observed that the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunities for hearing, noting that the petitioner had missed scheduled dates due to "inadvertent oversight" rather than a systemic failure.

Key Observations

• On the definition of 'months': "A 'month' does not refer to a period of thirty days, but refers to the actual period of a calendar month... Therefore when the period prescribed is three months (as contrasted from 90 days) from a specified date, the said period would expire in the third month on the date corresponding to the date upon which the period starts."
• On Statutory Protection: "The statutory intent behind providing this gap of 3 months can be interpreted to ... ensure that at least three months is available to the taxable person for filing a reply to the show cause notice issued to them and for being heard in a proper manner."
• On Appellate Remedy: "The entire purpose of providing a first appeal to the Appellate Authority is to rectify any error made by the Adjudicating Authority. Section 107 (11) of the Act is clear to the extent that the Appellate Authority has the power to either confirm, modify or annul the decision or order."

Final Verdict: Navigating the Appellate Route

The Court declined to entertain the writ petition, emphasizing that the existence of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act precludes such challenges unless exceptional circumstances—such as a fundamental breach of natural justice—are proven.

The petition was dismissed, with the High Court granting Tata Play Ltd leave to file an appeal before the designated appellate authority by August 31, 2025. The judgment serves as a stern reminder that while the CGST Act provides robust protections for taxpayers, the Court will not bypass established statutory appeal mechanisms where a timely and fair process has been followed by the tax authorities.

---

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.