M.M. Motors v Senior Joint Commissioner of Revenue, Calcutta High Court, [2026] 188 taxmann.com 384 (Calcutta), 13 July 2026

The Calcutta High Court delivered a significant ruling clarifying that the statutory limitation period for passing an adjudication order under Section 73(9) relates strictly to the issuance (making) of the order rather than its subsequent digital communication or service. The dispute centered on a final order for the April 2018 to March 2019 tax period that was digitally signed on April 30, 2024, the final day of the limitation period, but was not uploaded to the GST portal in Form GST DRC-07 until May 1, 2024. Aided by an amicus curiae, the Court established that an order under Section 73 involves three distinct legal functions: the adjudicatory decision (making), the formal signing (issuance), and the delivery to the taxpayer (communication).  

The Court held that while an order must be served to become enforceable, its legal validity is secured if the proper officer signs it within the prescribed timeframe, noting that current GST law intentionally omitted language from older regimes that tied limitation to “service”. Ultimately, the Court ruled in favor of the Revenue and dismissed the petition, confirming that the passing of an order is legally complete once signed, regardless of a slight delay in digital transmission. 

Last Updated on 3 August, 2026