FY 2022-23 section 73 orders: what the 31 December 2026 deadline means

For FY 2022-23, the order on a section 73 show cause notice must be issued by 31 December 2026: three years from the annual return's due date of 31 December 2023 (s.73(10), rule 80(1)). In nine Tamil Nadu districts the date is 10 January 2027, because their return was due on 10 January 2024 (rule 80(1B)). An order not issued in time ends the case: the proceedings are "deemed to be concluded" (s.75(10)). With an open FY 2022-23 notice, file the reply and a written hearing request now, and record the order's signing and upload dates when it comes.

What is the last date for a section 73 order for FY 2022-23?

Section 73 (no allegation of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression; those go under section 74, with five years) applies "for determination of tax pertaining to the period up to Financial Year 2023-24" (s.73(12)). The deadline:

"(10) The proper officer shall issue the order under sub-section (9) within three years from the due date for furnishing of annual return for the financial year to which the tax not paid or short paid or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised relates to or within three years from the date of erroneous refund."

CGST Act, 2017, section 73(10) (CBIC text)

The annual return (FORM GSTR-9) is due "on or before the thirty-first day of December following the end of such financial year" (rule 80(1)). Notification 02/2024-Central Tax of 5 January 2024, in force from 31 December 2023, inserted rule 80(1B): for FY 2022-23 the return was due on 10 January 2024 for persons whose principal place of business is in Chennai, Tiruvallur, Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram, Tirunelveli, Tenkasi, Kanyakumari, Thoothukudi or Virudhunagar.

FY 2022-23 under section 73. "Notice by" is three months before the order deadline (s.73(2)). Excludes any stay (s.75(1)).

A notice issued after 30 September 2026 (10 October in the nine districts) misses the three months of section 73(2); the notice time-limit calculator covers that point and the other years.

Has any notification extended the FY 2022-23 deadline?

Section 168A allows extensions for actions that "cannot be completed or complied with due to force majeure". Three notifications extended the section 73(10) date for named years:

• Notification 13/2022-Central Tax (5 July 2022): FY 2017-18 "up to the 30th day of September, 2023".
• Notification 09/2023-Central Tax (31 March 2023): FY 2017-18 to 31 December 2023, FY 2018-19 to 31 March 2024 and FY 2019-20 to 30 June 2024.
• Notification 56/2023-Central Tax (28 December 2023): FY 2018-19 "up to the 30th day of April, 2024" and FY 2019-20 "up to the 31st day of August, 2024".

None of them names FY 2022-23. For this year the only change is the Tamil Nadu due date above, which moved the anchor, not the three years. Before relying on 31 December 2026, check CBIC's notification list for anything issued after 6 November 2026.

Is the order "issued" when it is signed, uploaded or served?

Section 73(9) says the officer shall determine the amount "and issue an order"; its summary is uploaded in FORM GST DRC-07 (rule 142(5)).

The Calcutta High Court decided the point on 13 July 2026 in WPA 8929 of 2025 (single judge). A section 73 order for FY 2018-19 was digitally signed on 30 April 2024, the last day under Notification 56/2023, and uploaded in DRC-07 on 1 May 2024 (paras 1, 2). The Court read "issue" as follows:

"Ordinarily, issue of a notice or order means to formally make it out of the authority’s hands by signing, dating and sending the documents for dispatch and completion of secretarial practice."

Calcutta High Court, WPA 8929 of 2025, 13 July 2026, para 11

It held that "the uploading of the order on the following date, following the issuance of the order does not render the same void or barred by limitation" (para 19). Its answer (para 21): "the period of limitation is confined to the issuance of the order and not on the service thereof". The writ petition was dismissed. The petitioners relied on income-tax rulings treating a signed notice as issued only when sent; the Court held they did not assist (paras 15, 18).

For your own appeal, the Telangana Full Bench counts from upload: limitation "would run from the date on which the show cause notice or order is uploaded in the common portal" (W.P. No. 20397 of 2025 and batch, 30 September 2026, para 154). Keep the PDF and a dated screenshot of the portal entry.

What if the order PDF shows no signature?

The High Courts differ, but none of these rulings ends the case on limitation:

• Telangana, Full Bench (three judges), W.P. No. 20397 of 2025 and batch, 30 September 2026: "It is, therefore, held that the presence of the digital signature on the Forms is not the requirement on the documents covered under Chapter XVIII of the CGST Rules." Notices and orders authenticated by the officer and uploaded are valid, "However, absence of DIN or RFN on any of these documents would render it invalid." (para 154) Contrary rulings the petitioners relied on "do not lay down the correct position of law" (para 154).
• Delhi, Division Bench, W.P.(C) 16532/2025, 31 October 2025: orders are uploaded only through the officer's digital key, so "the authenticity and genuinity of the order cannot be disputed, unless there is a misuse of the digital key" (para 11).
• Andhra Pradesh, Division Bench, W.P. No. 26941 of 2026, 22 September 2026: an FY 2020-21 DRC-07 of 27 December 2024 carried no signature. The Court proceeded "as the order without signature is not valid in the eye of law" (para 6) and set it aside, with liberty "to conduct fresh assessment, after giving a notice to the petitioner, in accordance with law", on condition that the petitioner deposit 30% of the disputed tax within eight weeks, failing which the order revives (para 7).

Check the order for a DIN or RFN. A missing visible signature is a weak ground in Telangana and Delhi; in Andhra Pradesh it led to a fresh assessment, not a win.

Can an order rushed out in the last week stand without a hearing?

Section 75(4) requires a hearing "where any adverse decision is contemplated", deadline or not. In WPA 9256 of 2024 (Calcutta High Court, single judge, 6 May 2024), the notice of 31 August 2023 for FY 2017-18 showed "N.A." for the date, time and venue of the hearing (para 7), and the order came on 29 December 2023, two days before that year's extended deadline of 31 December 2023 under Notification 09/2023. The Court set it aside (para 8) and entertained the writ despite the appeal remedy:

"an appeal is no substitute to revisit of an order passed without complying the principles of natural justice."

Calcutta High Court, WPA 9256 of 2024, 6 May 2024, para 9

It directed a decision after a hearing "not later than six weeks from the date of communication of this order" (para 10), well after the deadline. More rulings: our section 75(4) guide.

Does a stay or a remand move the 31 December 2026 date?

• A stay. Where a court or the Appellate Tribunal stays the notice or the order, "the period of such stay shall be excluded" in computing the section 73(2) and (10) periods (s.75(1)).
• A remand. "Where any order is required to be issued in pursuance of the direction of the Appellate Authority or Appellate Tribunal or a court, such order shall be issued within two years from the date of communication of the said direction." (s.75(3))

The Allahabad High Court (Division Bench, Writ Tax No. 2333 of 2025, 17 May 2025) held that a single judge's three months for a fresh order "cannot be read as creating a different period of limitation than what is provided under Section 75(3) of the Act" (para 10); "any order which is required to be issued pursuant to the remand, the same shall be issued within a period of two years from the date of communication of the said order." (para 11)

So an FY 2022-23 order set aside and remanded in 2027 can be issued afresh within two years of the direction.

What if the order is issued after 31 December 2026?

Section 75(10) answers it: "The adjudication proceedings shall be deemed to be concluded, if the order is not issued within the period specified in sub-section (10) of section 73 or in sub-section (10) of section 74 or in sub-section (7) of section 74A."

The Delhi High Court applied the same rule to section 74(10) on 12 May 2026 (Division Bench, W.P.(C) 6449/2026). An FY 2017-18 order dated 30 December 2025 came almost eleven months after the deadline of 5 February 2025, and the department admitted it was out of time (paras 7, 9). The Court quashed it in a writ:

"The impugned order thus suffers from lack of jurisdiction. The mandate of limitation under Section 74(10) is mandatory and cannot be relaxed."

Delhi High Court, Division Bench, W.P.(C) 6449/2026, 12 May 2026, para 9

Before pleading it, check the issue date (the Calcutta ruling measures from issue, not upload), whether you are in the nine districts, and any stay or remand (s.75(1), (3)). If the writ is uncertain, file the appeal too: three months from communication, plus one month for sufficient cause (s.107(1), (4)).

What should I do now? A decision table

FY 2022-23, section 73. Dates in brackets are for the nine Tamil Nadu districts.

Frequently asked questions

Sources

• Statute CGST Act s.73, s.74, s.75, s.107, s.168A; CGST Rules rule 80, rule 142.
• Notifications 02/2024-Central Tax (rule 80(1B)); 13/2022, 09/2023 and 56/2023-Central Tax (section 168A), linked above.
• Judgments as named above, with paragraph numbers.