GST notices: the ladder from mismatch to demand

Short answer: GST demands arrive through a ladder, not out of nowhere. Automated mismatch intimation, then scrutiny, then a pre-notice intimation, then the show-cause notice, then the order. Each rung has its own reply window, and each rung you let pass makes the next one more expensive.

If you are holding a notice, the first task is identifying which rung you are on.

Limitation — and a live issue worth knowing about

Ordinary limitation under Section 73 runs from the due date of the annual return for the year, with Section 74 carrying a longer period.

For FY 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20, the government extended those periods through notifications issued under Section 168A — Notification 13/2022, then 9/2023, then 56/2023.

Those extensions are under challenge and the position is unresolved. High Courts have divided: the Madras High Court has held 9/2023 and 56/2023 ultra vires, reasoning among other things that post-facto GST Council approval does not satisfy Section 168A; the Gauhati High Court quashed 56/2023; the Telangana High Court upheld it. A batch is pending before the Supreme Court.

Three practical consequences:

1. If you hold a demand for FY 2017-18 to 2019-20, there is a live limitation ground that has nothing to do with the merits.
2. It is jurisdiction-sensitive — your own High Court's position binds, other High Courts are persuasive only.
3. It is unsettled, so the ground should be preserved and pleaded rather than relied on as decisive, and the current Supreme Court status checked before anything is filed.

This is the single most valuable thing to check on an older GST demand, and it is frequently missed because it does not appear anywhere in the notice.

The procedural grounds worth checking every time

A reply that argues only the merits is under-built. Run these in parallel:

• Personal hearing — Section 75(4). An opportunity of hearing must be given where requested in writing or where an adverse decision is contemplated. It is mandatory, and orders passed without it have been set aside.
• Reasoned order — Section 75(6). The order must set out the relevant facts and the basis of the decision. A conclusory order that does not engage with your reply is challengeable.
• A vague show-cause notice. An SCN that does not state what is alleged with enough particularity for you to answer it is defective — you cannot meaningfully reply to a notice that does not say what you did wrong.
• Bunching of financial years. A single notice covering several years, where limitation for each has to be computed separately, is open to objection.
• Parallel proceedings — Section 6(2)(b). Where one authority (Centre or State) has initiated proceedings on a subject matter, the other is barred from proceeding on the same subject matter. Worth checking whenever notices arrive from both.
• DIN and authentication. As with any departmental communication.

None of these depend on your figures being right, which is what makes them worth checking first.

⚠️ The Section 128A amnesty has closed

This is worth stating plainly, because a lot of material still online describes it as though it were available.

Section 128A waived interest and penalty on Section 73 (non-fraud) demands for FY 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20. It was conditional on paying the tax by 31 March 2025 and filing the application in SPL-01 or SPL-02 by 30 June 2025. Neither deadline was extended.

It does not help with a notice received now. Two residual points:

• It never covered Section 74 (fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression) demands at all — only Section 73.
• Some High Courts have read the application deadline as directory rather than mandatory, which may leave room for a taxpayer who paid the tax within time but missed the form. That is fact-specific and turns on current authority in your jurisdiction; it is not a general route back in.

If a notice for those years has arrived now, the defences are the ordinary ones — limitation, the validity of any Section 168A extension relied on, procedural defects, and the merits — not the amnesty.

Registration cancellation

A separate and more urgent track. REG-17 is the show-cause for cancellation under Section 29, replied to in REG-18. Registration may also be suspended while proceedings run, which stops you issuing tax invoices — a commercial problem that arrives long before any demand is adjudicated.

Where cancellation has already happened, Section 30 provides for revocation, subject to its own timeline. Acting quickly matters far more here than in a demand matter, because the business impact is immediate.

What to do with a notice

1. Identify the rung and the form. A mismatch intimation, a scrutiny notice and a show-cause are three different things with three different consequences.
2. Diarise the reply date and the form to reply in — ASMT-11, DRC-06, REG-18.
3. Check limitation and the provision invoked before touching the merits, particularly on FY 2017-18 to 2019-20 matters.
4. Reconcile properly — GSTR-1 to GSTR-3B to books, and GSTR-2B to the purchase register. Most scrutiny points dissolve on a clean reconciliation, which is the same monthly discipline covered in input tax credit and GSTR-2B.
5. Request a personal hearing in writing, so that Section 75(4) is engaged on the record.
6. Plead grounds cumulatively — limitation, procedure, the characterisation under 73 versus 74, and the merits, in the alternative. The department needs one ground to succeed; so should you.

The wider position on registration, returns and credit is on the GST registration and return filing page, and income-tax notices are covered separately under tax notices and assessments.

GST procedure and limitation are moving quickly, and the Section 168A litigation in particular is unresolved as at the date above. This note describes the general framework; the position for a specific notice depends on the period, the provision invoked and your jurisdictional High Court, and should be confirmed against them before a reply is filed.