LexStreakRead free →
Supreme Court of India· 25 August 2026

Under the CGST Act, do the three years in Section 73(10) run to the notice or the order?

M/s Tata Steel Limited v. Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Finance and Ors
2026 INSC 920 · Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.16859 of 2026
Coram: Justice K. Vinod Chandran · Justice J. B. Pardiwala
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow s.74 Central Goods and Services …📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

To the order. The limitation under Section 73(10) is to issue the order under Section 73(9) and not to issue a notice; sub-section (2) of Section 73 provides for a notice at least three months before the time limit under Section 73(10). The argument that proceedings were initiated prior to the expiry of limitation under Section 73 is therefore fallacious.

Headnote

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — s.73 — s.74 — Show Cause Notice — Extended period of limitation — Suppression of facts — Foundational facts — Protective demand — Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — s.74 — Extended period — Foundational facts in the notice — Held: The foundational facts which led to the inference arrived at of fraud/willful misrepresentation/suppression should be evident from the notice itself; the mere employment of such words will not indicate an application of mind. (¶14) Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — s.73 — s.74 — Satisfaction of the Assessing Officer — Held further: Proceedings under Section 73/74 can be initiated only on the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer; even if observations are made on audit, the Assessing Officer should enter his satisfaction before a notice is issued. (¶11, 13) Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — s.73(2) — s.73(10) — Limitation runs to the order — Held further: The limitation under Section 73(10) is to issue the order under Section 73(9) and not to issue a notice, sub-section (2) of Section 73 providing for a notice at least three months before that time limit. (¶12) Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — Protective demand — Not statutorily permitted — Held further: A fresh notice reviving an earlier notice and proposing a protective demand cannot be sustained, there being no such measure of protective assessment statutorily permitted under the GST Act. Appeal allowed with liberty. (¶10, 15)

In the Court's own words
Paragraph 12We are unable to countenance the argument of the learned ASG that Explanation 2 to Section 74 applies, since even according to him it stood omitted with effect from 01.11.2024. Equally fallacious is the argument that the proceedings were initiated prior to the expiry of limitation under Section 73. The limitation under Section 73 (10) is also to issue the order under Section 73 (9) and not to issue a notice and sub-section (2) of Section 73 provides for a notice, at least three months before the time limit under Section 73 (10).
Acts & Sections
s.74 Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017s.73 Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017s.44 Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017Rule 80 Goods & Service Tax Rules, 2017

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of M/s Tata Steel Limited v. Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Finance and Ors — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Can a Section 74 notice under the CGST Act stand where the allegation of suppression lacks foundational facts?Must the Assessing Officer enter his own satisfaction before a CGST Act notice issues on audit objections?Is a protective demand permitted under the GST law where the limitation period is coming to a close?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections