A GST demand under Section 73 or 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) stands only if the CBIC proper officer has jurisdiction in India and the show cause notice issues within limitation — 3 years (§73) or 5 years (§74) from the GSTR-9 due date. CBIC Instruction 02/2021-22-GST further requires the §73 notice at least 3 months, and the §74 notice at least 6 months, before the order deadline. A wrong officer rank, a missing Section 3 appointment notification, and a time-barred notice are the strongest jurisdictional defences.
Background — why jurisdiction and limitation come first
Most GST demand defences are argued on the merits — whether the input tax credit was rightly claimed, whether the rate was correctly applied. But two questions sit upstream of every merit argument: did the right officer issue and adjudicate the notice, and was the notice issued in time? If either fails, the demand is a nullity regardless of the underlying tax position.
These threshold defences carry disproportionate weight because they are jurisdictional — courts treat a void notice as incapable of cure by the appellate authority. The Central Government and CBIC have, since 2021, issued a tight chain of instructions, circulars and appointment notifications that define the proper officer and the timing windows. That chain is the practitioner's first checklist on receiving any §73 or §74 notice.
This explainer covers the Central-level CBIC framework only. It does not address state SGST notices, Advance Ruling matters, or GST Appellate Tribunal procedure, which are separate regimes.
Limitation — the clock the SCN must beat
Sections 73(10) and 74(10) of the CGST Act fix the outer deadline for passing the adjudication order: 3 years from the due date of the annual return (FORM GSTR-9) for §73, and 5 years for §74. The SCN itself must precede the order deadline by a statutory margin.
CBIC Instruction No. 02/2021-22-GST, dated 22 September 2021 (INS_02_2021), made the timing concrete for the earliest GST years. It directed field formations to issue pending SCNs in evasion and fraudulent-ITC cases for FY 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 before limitation expired, and recorded the GSTR-9 due dates that start the clock:
| Financial year | GSTR-9 due date (limitation trigger) | §73(10) order deadline (3 yrs) | §74(10) order deadline (5 yrs) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2017-18 | 5 / 7 February 2020 | ~February 2023 | ~February 2025 |
| 2018-19 | 31 December 2020 | December 2023 | December 2025 |
| 2019-20 | 31 March 2021 | March 2024 | March 2026 |
The Instruction's operative rule for proper officers: the §73 SCN must issue at least 3 months before the §73(10) order deadline, and the §74 SCN at least 6 months before the §74(10) deadline. The Board flagged that SCNs had been issued in only a small fraction of detected cases — meaning many demands raced the limitation wall. For taxpayers, the converse is the defence: an SCN issued after the relevant window, or an order passed beyond the §73(10)/§74(10) ceiling, is time-barred. Verify the notified GSTR-9 due date for the year in dispute before computing the bar, because several of these dates were themselves extended by notification.
Proper officer — who can issue, and who can adjudicate
A recurring jurisdictional defect arises when the investigating officer also adjudicates the demand. CBIC has expressly separated these functions for cases originating from the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI).
Circular No. 169/01/2022-GST (12 March 2022, CIR_169_2022) amended the earlier Circular 31/05/2018-GST to confine DGGI and Audit Commissionerate officers to issuing show cause notices only. Adjudication is to be done by a separate competent officer: for a single-Commissionerate case, the executive Commissionerate where the noticee is registered; for a multi-Commissionerate or multi-noticee DGGI case, an Additional or Joint Commissioner of Central Tax holding all-India jurisdiction under Notification No. 02/2022-Central Tax. The circular set out a 21-row zone-to-Commissionerate map and a transitional rule requiring pre-notification DGGI notices to be re-routed by corrigendum.
Circular No. 239/33/2024-GST (4 December 2024, CIR_239_2024) refreshed this scheme after Notification No. 27/2024-Central Tax (25 November 2024, effective 1 December 2024) expanded the list of all-India-jurisdiction Commissionerates. It substituted paras 7.1 and 7.3 of Circular 31/05/2018, issued an updated 23-row zone-to-Commissionerate table, and confirmed the highest-demand tie-breaker: where a single DGGI SCN covers multiple noticees across Commissionerates, the common adjudicating authority is fixed — irrespective of demand amount — by the zone of the noticee bearing the highest tax demand. For DGGI SCNs issued before 25 November 2024 with no adjudication order by 30 November 2024, a corrigendum making the SCN answerable to the new common authority is mandatory; its absence is a clean procedural challenge.
Appointment notifications — the document that proves jurisdiction
For DGGI-originated demands, the adjudicating authority's jurisdiction is conferred by a case-specific appointment notification under Section 3 of the CGST Act. These notifications name the exact SCN reference number and the appointed officer — which means a taxpayer can verify jurisdiction by matching the signing officer against the notification.
Three in-force examples illustrate the pattern:
- Notification No. 35/2023-Central Tax (
CGST_35_2023, a Section 5 / IGST §3 order) consolidated three SCNs against a single consumer-electronics manufacturer issued by Superintendent, Additional Commissioner and Joint Commissioner across Mumbai, Chennai and Bengaluru, appointing the Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru South as the single adjudicating authority. - Notification No. 28/2024-Central Tax (
CGST_28_2024) appointed a Joint/Additional Commissioner holding DGGI-adjudication charge for 40 noticee groups under DGGI Delhi investigation No. 3110/2022 (SCN series 11181–12779), invoking §§73, 74, 122, 125 and 127. - Notification No. 31/2024-Central Tax (
CGST_31_2024) appointed senior DGGI officers as adjudicating authorities for textile-sector noticees in Punjab, Haryana and Uttarakhand, again under §§73, 74, 122, 125 and 127.
The practitioner takeaway is uniform: any adjudication order in a DGGI matter that is not backed by a matching Section 3 appointment notification for the specific SCN is ultra vires and challengeable.
Merit defences that ride alongside jurisdiction
Even where jurisdiction holds, a refund-based demand can fail on the merits. Circular No. 173/05/2022-GST (CIR_173_2022) clarified that refund of accumulated ITC under the inverted duty structure (Section 54(3)(ii) CGST Act) is admissible where input and output goods are the same but the output is supplied under a concessional rate notification that lowers the output GST rate below the input rate at the same point in time — subject to the supply not being nil-rated or fully exempt. It corrected the earlier para 3.2 of Circular 135/05/2020-GST, which was being misapplied to deny these refunds. A §73/74 demand alleging an erroneous IDS refund can therefore be resisted on the merits by invoking this clarification.
Note also that not every figure in a notice is a demand. CBIC Notification No. 73/2017-Central Tax (CGST_73_2017), issued under Section 128, caps the late fee under Section 47 for delayed GSTR-4 (composition-taxpayer return) at ₹25 per day (₹10 per day where central tax payable is nil). A demand notice cannot inflate that statutory cap.
Veritect Legal AI — proper-officer and limitation defence pack
Veritect Legal AI subscribers query the full verbatim text of CBIC Instruction 02/2021-22-GST, the complete 21-row and 23-row zone-to-Commissionerate adjudication maps from Circulars 169/2022 and 239/2024, the full noticee tables in Notifications 28/2024 and 31/2024 (SCN reference numbers and appointed officers), and a clause-by-clause limitation calculator keyed to the notified GSTR-9 due dates for every financial year.
Practitioner implications
Run the two-question triage on day one. Before drafting any merit reply, ask: (1) is the SCN within the §73(10)/§74(10) window measured from the notified GSTR-9 due date, with the 3-month/6-month SCN margin honoured per Instruction 02/2021-22; and (2) does the adjudicating officer hold valid jurisdiction? For DGGI cases, pull the Section 3 appointment notification and match it to your SCN reference number.
Treat the investigating-vs-adjudicating split as a hard rule. If the DGGI or Audit Commissionerate officer who investigated also signs the order, Circulars 169/2022 and 239/2024 give you a direct ground — adjudication must rest with the separate appointed all-India-jurisdiction Additional/Joint Commissioner.
Check the corrigendum for legacy DGGI SCNs. For a multi-noticee DGGI SCN issued before 25 November 2024 with no order by 30 November 2024, confirm a corrigendum re-routed it to the common adjudicating authority. Its absence is a procedural defect under Circular 239/2024.
Identify the highest-demand noticee early. In a multi-Commissionerate DGGI matter, the highest-demand noticee fixes the receiving Commissionerate. Establishing it tells you which office to file before and lets you contest a notice answerable to the wrong authority.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What is the limitation period for a GST show cause notice under Section 73 and Section 74?
Under Section 73(10) of the CGST Act, 2017, the proper officer must issue the adjudication order within 3 years of the GSTR-9 due date, and the SCN at least 3 months before that. Under Section 74(10), the order window is 5 years and the SCN must issue at least 6 months before it. CBIC Instruction No. 02/2021-22-GST records the GSTR-9 due dates that start the clock: 5/7 February 2020 (FY 2017-18), 31 December 2020 (FY 2018-19) and 31 March 2021 (FY 2019-20). An SCN issued after the relevant window is time-barred and challengeable.
Q: Can the DGGI officer who investigated my case also adjudicate the demand?
No. CBIC Circular No. 169/01/2022-GST (12 March 2022) and Circular No. 239/33/2024-GST (4 December 2024) confine DGGI and Audit Commissionerate officers to issuing show cause notices only. Adjudication must be done by a separate proper officer — for single-Commissionerate cases, the executive Commissionerate where the noticee is registered; for multi-Commissionerate or multi-noticee DGGI cases, an Additional or Joint Commissioner of Central Tax holding all-India jurisdiction. An order passed by the investigating officer is liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction.
Q: How do I check whether the officer adjudicating my GST notice has valid jurisdiction?
For DGGI-originated demands, jurisdiction is conferred by a case-specific appointment notification under Section 3 of the CGST Act. Notifications like No. 28/2024-Central Tax (40 DGGI noticee groups) and No. 31/2024-Central Tax (textile-sector noticees in Punjab, Haryana and Uttarakhand) name the exact SCN reference number and the appointed adjudicating authority. Verify that the officer signing your order matches the authority appointed for your specific SCN number — an order without a matching appointment notification is challengeable as ultra vires.
Q: What does the 'highest demand' tie-breaker mean in a multi-noticee DGGI case?
Under Circular No. 239/33/2024-GST, where one DGGI show cause notice covers multiple noticees across different Central Tax Commissionerates, a single common adjudicating authority hears the matter irrespective of the demand amount. The receiving Commissionerate is fixed by the zone where the noticee bearing the highest tax demand has its principal place of business, mapped through a 23-row zone-to-Commissionerate table. Identifying that highest-demand noticee early tells you which Additional/Joint Commissioner office to engage.
Q: Is a GST notice valid if my objection is about a refund that was already correctly claimed?
A demand alleging erroneous refund of accumulated input tax credit can be defended on the merits where the refund was lawful. CBIC Circular No. 173/05/2022-GST clarified that refund of accumulated ITC under the inverted duty structure (Section 54(3)(ii) CGST Act) is admissible where input and output goods are the same but the output is supplied under a concessional rate notification that lowers the output rate below the input rate at the same point in time. Officers wrongly invoking the original para 3.2 of Circular 135/05/2020-GST to deny such refunds can be resisted by citing this clarification in the reply.
Q: What is the late fee for filing GSTR-4 late, and does an enforcement notice change it?
CBIC Notification No. 73/2017-Central Tax, issued under Section 128 of the CGST Act, 2017, caps the late fee under Section 47 for delayed FORM GSTR-4 (the composition-taxpayer return) at ₹25 per day, reduced to ₹10 per day where the central tax payable in the return is nil. This is a continuing statutory cap, separate from any demand under Section 73 or 74. A demand-and-recovery notice cannot inflate the late fee beyond this cap; if a notice computes it differently, the figure is contestable against the notification.
Sources
- Primary: CBIC Instruction No. 02/2021-22-GST dated 22 September 2021 (time-bound SCN issuance) — taxinformation.cbic.gov.in (
INS_02_2021) - CBIC Circular No. 169/01/2022-GST dated 12 March 2022 (proper officer for DGGI adjudication) — taxinformation.cbic.gov.in (
CIR_169_2022) - CBIC Circular No. 239/33/2024-GST dated 4 December 2024 (expanded all-India adjudication map) — cbic-gst.gov.in / taxinformation.cbic.gov.in PDF (
CIR_239_2024) - CBIC Circular No. 173/05/2022-GST dated 6 July 2022 (inverted duty structure refund) — taxinformation.cbic.gov.in (
CIR_173_2022) - CBIC Notifications No. 35/2023, 28/2024 and 31/2024-Central Tax (Section 3 adjudicating-authority appointments) — taxinformation.cbic.gov.in (
CGST_35_2023,CGST_28_2024,CGST_31_2024) - CBIC Notification No. 73/2017-Central Tax dated 29 December 2017 (GSTR-4 late-fee cap, §128) — taxinformation.cbic.gov.in (
CGST_73_2017) - Statutory basis: Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — Sections 3, 47, 54(3), 73, 74, 128, 168 on India Code
Authored by Veritect Legal Intelligence. Content verified against the cited CBIC instructions, circulars and notifications on 15 June 2026.