- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules GST Notice Delay Cannot Be Condoned

Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules GST Notice Delay Cannot Be Condoned
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that a delay of two days in issuing a Goods and Services Tax (GST) notice cannot be condoned, emphasizing the mandatory nature of statutory time limits.
A Division Bench comprising Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and Harinath N. observed that the timeline prescribed under Section 73(2) of the GST Act is strict and any violation renders the show cause notice invalid.
The case involved a petitioner who received a show cause notice dated November 30, 2024, for the assessment year 2020-21. However, as per statutory provisions, the notice should have been issued by November 28, 2024. The deadline for issuing the final order was February 28, 2025, making the three-month period for initiating proceedings expire on November 28, 2024.
The court held that limitation periods under the GST Act are mandatory, and authorities cannot issue orders beyond the prescribed timeframe. It further noted that treating the timeline as merely directory would undermine statutory protections for taxpayers, such as the right to seek adjournments for personal hearings.
The bench cautioned that allowing notices to be issued without adhering to minimum waiting periods could bypass taxpayer protections, enabling authorities to demand responses within an unreasonably short time. It clarified that this was not the intent of Section 75(2) or Section 73(10) of the GST Act.
Based on these observations, the court allowed the petition, declaring the delayed notice invalid.