When a GST Notice Lands: What the Act Gives You, and What the Notice Says

On 30 September 2026 a Full Bench of the Telangana High Court destroyed one of the most popular arguments in GST practice, and in the same paragraph handed practitioners a better one.

The argument it destroyed is that a show cause notice or order is a nullity because it bears no visible digital signature. In Swastik Enterprises v. State Tax Officer and a large batch of connected writ petitions, the Full Bench held that the presence of a digital signature "is not the requirement on the documents covered under Chapter XVIII of the CGST Rules", and that notices and orders electronically authenticated by the proper officer and uploaded on the common portal "are valid documents in the eye of law". The reference had been made by a Division Bench on 12 June 2026 because of a coordinate Bench decision in Bigleap Technologies and Solutions Private Limited v. State of Telangana, and the Full Bench held expressly that Bigleap Technologies does not lay down the correct position of law.

The better argument is in the next sentence of the same paragraph:

However, absence of DIN or RFN on any of these documents would render it invalid.

And the sentence after that decides when every period in this series begins:

The period of limitation to avail statutory remedy or to make other compliances would run from the date on which the show cause notice or order is uploaded in the common portal.

Making the document available on the portal is valid service under section 169(1)(d). So the upload date is the date, and the first two things to do with any GST notice are to look for the Document Identification Number and to record the date it went up.

This first part of the series deals with everything from there to the order: how long you really have to reply, which demand regime governs your year, and the two windows in which paying ends the proceeding outright.

How long you have to reply, and when he can move

This is more subtle than it is usually stated, and the usual statement is wrong.

Section 61(3) provides that where no satisfactory explanation is furnished "within a period of thirty days of being informed by the proper officer or such further period as may be permitted by him", the officer may initiate action under section 65, 66 or 67, or proceed to determine the tax under section 73, 74 or 74A.

Rule 99(1), under which the ASMT-10 issues, requires him to seek the explanation "within such time, not exceeding thirty days from the date of service of the notice or such further period as may be permitted by him".

Read together, two things follow, and only one of them helps you.

A notice that gives less than thirty days is not for that reason bad. Rule 99(1) caps the period at thirty days; it does not floor it. A notice giving five days or seven days is within the letter of the rule, and an argument that a short period is by itself ultra vires should not be led.

What the officer cannot do is act on the short period. Section 61(3) makes the trigger for the next step the absence of a satisfactory explanation within thirty days, or such further period as he has permitted. A five-day notice is not bad. Proceeding on day six is, because the statutory condition for moving to section 65, 66, 67, 73, 74 or 74A has not yet been satisfied.

In practice: reply within the time the notice gives if you can, and if you cannot, write within that time asking for the balance of the thirty days and diarise the request. The object is to be able to show that the explanation was furnished, or the extension sought, inside the period section 61(3) actually speaks of.

The chain, and what each link requires

One correction to a common submission. Rule 142(1A) says the proper officer may communicate the proposed liability in Part A of FORM GST DRC-01A before serving the notice. It is discretionary. The argument that a demand is vitiated because no DRC-01A preceded it does not survive the present text.

Which regime applies to your year

This is the change most likely to catch a practitioner out, because both of the old sections still sit in the Act and still read as though they are current.

Sections 73 and 74 now apply only to periods up to the financial year 2023-24. Each says so in its own sub-section (12), inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act 2024. From the financial year 2024-25 onwards, section 74A governs the honest case and the fraud case within a single framework.

The cheapest exit in the Act, and it shuts early

The pay-and-close windows are the most underused provision in Chapter XV.

Where the demand is small, or the point is weak, paying within the window ends the proceeding altogether. Section 73(8) and section 74A(8) both provide that all proceedings in respect of the notice "shall be deemed to be concluded". Under section 74 the price is a twenty-five per cent penalty before the order and fifty per cent after it; under section 74A the same percentages apply but the window is sixty days rather than thirty.

Three points of practice follow.

The window runs from the issue of the notice, not from your reply, so the decision has to be taken while the reply is still being drafted. It is a commercial decision as much as a legal one: a client with a weak point and a modest exposure often does better to close it than to win an appeal three years later having funded a pre-deposit at two levels. And it is available on the fraud limb as well, which clients rarely expect.

One trap survives both regimes. Section 73(11) and section 74A(11) provide that where self-assessed tax, or an amount collected as tax, has not been paid within thirty days of its due date, the penalty is payable anyway. Paying after a notice does not rescue you from that one, so check which limb of the demand you are in before advising that payment ends the matter.

When the order itself is bad on its face

Not every defective order needs a ground of law. Some fail on the face of the record, and the courts have been returning them.

In RSH Amit Realty Development LLP v. Joint Commissioner of Revenue, decided 1 October 2026, the Calcutta High Court found the order "is not a reasoned and speaking order and suffers from perversity and non-application of mind", quashed it, and remanded the matter with a direction to reconsider after taking the taxpayer's reply into account, to pass a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks, and to afford an adequate opportunity of personal hearing. The State did not seriously oppose that course.

Two things are worth noticing about RSH Amit Realty. The reply was on the record and had simply not been dealt with, which is the commonest defect in a GST order and the easiest to demonstrate. And the Court expressly did not go into the merits, which is the trade: you get the order set aside and the proceeding back, not a finding in your favour.

The first week

1. Find the DIN or RFN. On the Telangana Full Bench its absence goes to validity. Do not lead on the absence of a visible digital signature; that argument has now failed. 2. Record the upload date on the portal. Every period in this series runs from it. 3. Reply within the time the notice gives, or ask within it for the balance of the thirty days. A short period is not bad in itself; acting on it before thirty days have run is. 4. Identify the regime. Up to FY 2023-24 it is section 73 or 74. From FY 2024-25 it is section 74A, and the payment window is sixty days. 5. Decide on the pay-and-close window before it shuts, and take the client's instructions in writing either way. 6. Check whether the demand includes self-assessed tax, where the penalty under section 73(11) or 74A(11) is payable regardless.

This is the first of four notes on GST time limits. The others take up the time the department has to pass the order, the appeal ladder and its two pre-deposits, and what is left when the time has gone. > This note is general information drawn from the Act, the Rules and reported > decisions, and is not advice upon any particular matter. The limits stated are > those in force on 11 October 2026, and several were changed by the Finance > (No. 2) Act 2024 with effect from different dates. The outcome in any case > depends upon its own record.