GST Demand Limitation: Financial-Year-Wise Deadline Method

What inputs are needed before calculating limitation?

Collect the financial year of the alleged liability, nature of allegation, annual-return due date, actual annual-return date, refund date where the case concerns an erroneous refund, notice service date, order date, and every claimed exclusion or extension. Use the statutory due date unless the provision expressly selects another date.

The actual filing of an annual return does not ordinarily replace the stated “due date” starting point. A late filing therefore should not be used to manufacture extra time.

How is the old section 73 deadline calculated?

For non-fraud periods through FY 2023-24, establish the base order date at three years from the annual-return due date. The notice must precede that date by at least three months.

For erroneous refund, substitute the refund date where the section says so.

How is the old section 74 deadline calculated?

For fraud-type periods through FY 2023-24, the base order window is five years and the notice must be at least six months earlier. The longer window is not available solely because an officer selected section 74. The notice must allege and ultimately establish the statutory conduct.

If an appellate authority or court directs redetermination as a non-fraud case, section 75 contains rules governing that consequence. Do not assume that every jurisdictional defect can be cured by relabelling.

How does section 74A change the method?

For FY 2024-25 onward, calculate two clocks:

1. notice within 42 months of the annual-return due date or erroneous-refund date; and
2. order within 12 months from the notice date.

The proper senior authority may extend the order period by a maximum of six months where the statutory conditions are met and reasons are recorded. Keep the extension order in the case file; a portal date alone does not demonstrate the legal preconditions.

What happened for FY 2017-18 to FY 2019-20?

The Government issued notifications under section 168A extending specified section 73 order deadlines. Notification 56/2023 states 30 April 2024 for FY 2018-19 and 31 August 2024 for FY 2019-20. Earlier notifications form part of the chain.

The validity of Notifications 9/2023 and 56/2023 has produced differing High Court outcomes and proceedings before the Supreme Court. A live case analysis should therefore state both the notified date and the litigation status applicable to the jurisdiction; it should not present a disputed extension as an uncontested universal conclusion.

How should exclusions be recorded?

Use a limitation ledger:

This prevents double counting and makes the conclusion reviewable.

What is a worked section 74A example?

Assume the annual-return due date for a future year is 31 December 2027 and no special change applies. The ordinary last notice date would be 42 months later, 30 June 2031. If a notice is validly issued on 15 May 2031, the ordinary order clock runs 12 months from that notice, not from 30 June 2031. Any six-month extension must be separately authorised and evidenced.

The example illustrates the method only. Due dates, emergency extensions and statutory amendments must be checked for the actual year.

What limitation errors recur most often?

• using the actual annual-return filing date instead of the statutory starting point;
• failing to distinguish notice and order deadlines;
• applying section 74A to an old period or section 73/74 to FY 2024-25 onward;
• treating an extension notification as immune from a live jurisdictional challenge;
• ignoring service defects;
• double counting a stay period; and
• omitting the erroneous-refund date in refund cases.

What should a limitation note conclude?

Show the base calculation first. Then identify each modification with its primary source and state whether it is undisputed, jurisdiction-specific or under challenge. Finish with both the department’s possible date and the taxpayer’s objection. That is more useful than a single unexplained red or green deadline.