Topic
The limitation period in Indian law sets the maximum time allowed to initiate legal proceedings, varying by statute and type of case such as tax, insolvency, criminal, or arbitration matters.
The Delhi SCDRC held that buying commercial shops for self-employment livelihood is not 'commercial purpose' under CPA 1986, so buyers remain consumers. It ordered a refund of Rs 4.2 lakh with 6-9% interest, Rs 1 lakh mental agony compensation, and Rs 50,000 costs after the builder cancelled bookings under an unproven payment plan.
West Bengal State Consumer Commission ruled that notice receipt date must be counted in 45-day limit under Section 13 CPA 1986 and that forums cannot condone delay beyond this window. It upheld the District Forum’s rejection of a time-barred version.
Patna HC quashed a 75% pension cut, ruling departmental proceeding on 2006-09 allegations initiated in 2015 was time-barred under Rule 43(b) of Bihar Pension Rules and violated natural justice by ignoring defence and relying on ex-parte report.
CESTAT held that trading income and rent from residential property are not services under Section 65B(44) Finance Act 1994, and set aside a Rs 19,72,702 demand for FY 2013/14 to 2015/16, giving relief to traders and residential landlords wrongly taxed.
Delhi State CDRC held that Omaxe’s allotment change and delayed possession amounted to deficient service, ordering refund of ₹5,52,838 with interest and ₹4 lakh compensation for mental agony, reinforcing buyers’ rights against builder delays.
The Gauhati HC held a Section 73(2) CGST show cause notice dated 29 Nov 2024 timely as three months remained after excluding the notice date, letting the appellant reply. This clarifies the GST notice limitation period and affects taxpayers.
SC held that MCGC becomes payable only on bill issuance, so the limitation period under Section 56(2) Electricity Act, 2003 starts from billing. Hence a 2007 demand for MCGC for 1998 was time-barred, affecting consumers and licensees.
The Uttarakhand State Consumer Commission ruled that the 30-day period to file a written statement under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 begins only upon receipt of the complete complaint with all annexures, not from the date of mere notice. The District Commission's order closing the opposite party's right to file a written statement was set aside, and the complainant was directed to furnish the full paper book within 30 days.
A 2014 revision notice cancelling an earlier land-record order was set aside because the Karnataka Land Revenue Act imposes a strict three-year limit on exercising revisionary power, which cannot be extended by subsequent amendments or the Limitation Act. The ruling bars authorities from reviving old cases beyond that period, protecting owners of surveyed lands.
The Delhi High Court held that the three-month limitation for filing a Section 34 petition only begins when a Section 33 application is finally disposed, even if the application is a sham. Consequently, parties can file Section 34 petitions later than previously thought, and courts may award punitive costs against frivolous Section 33 filings.
Supreme Court ruled the Central Excise Department cannot invoke the proviso to Section 11A to reopen assessments without a specific allegation of wilful suppression of valuation. The decision curtails the department’s ability to extend the limitation period, shielding job-work vehicle manufacturers from retrospective tax claims.
A Section 11(6) petition is limited to a prima-facie test of the arbitration agreement, with limitation defences outside the court’s jurisdiction. The court also held that non-signatory promoters can be treated as parties to the arbitration. This narrows Section 11 scope and extends arbitral reach to promoters.
CESTAT ruled that royalties for pre-installing Microsoft operating systems are not ‘IPR services’, rendering the service-tax demand invalid and time-barred because tax cannot be levied before 16 May 2008 or after the limitation period. The decision shields hardware manufacturers that bundle OS software.
The Allahabad High Court ruled that the 18-month limitation in Sec 245D(4A)(iii) starts at the initial filing of a pending settlement application and cannot be reset by transferring the case, rendering the Interim Board’s October 2023 order time-barred and void. Taxpayers can no longer revive stale settlement applications by shifting them between boards.
The tribunal quashed a Rs 89.13 lakh service tax demand, holding that royalty payable under a mining lease granted before 1 April 2016 falls outside the service tax net. It also ruled that the extended limitation period cannot be invoked, benefiting entities with pre-2016 mining assignments.