Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) deals with the determination and recovery of tax that was not paid or was short paid, tax that was erroneously refunded, or input tax credit (ITC) that was wrongly availed or utilised for reasons other than fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax.
Section 73 is an important provision in the GST demand and recovery framework because it provides the procedure through which the proper officer can issue a show cause notice, consider the taxpayer’s representation, determine the amount payable and issue an order.
However, there is an important change in the current law that must be understood before studying this section.
Section 73 now applies to periods up to Financial Year 2022-23. For Financial Year 2023-24 onwards, determination of tax not paid, short paid, erroneously refunded or ITC wrongly availed or utilised is dealt with under the newly inserted Section 74A, irrespective of whether the case involves fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. The GST Council recommended restricting Sections 73 and 74 to FY 2022-23 and introducing Section 74A for FY 2023-24 onwards; these changes were subsequently enacted through the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024.
Therefore, Section 73 remains highly relevant for older GST periods, particularly disputes and assessments relating to FY 2017-18 to FY 2022-23.
What is Section 73 of the CGST Act?
Section 73 provides the legal mechanism for determining tax liabilities where the short payment, non-payment, erroneous refund or wrong availment/utilisation of ITC is not attributed to fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax.
In its current applicable form, Section 73 covers:
- Tax not paid
- Tax short paid
- Tax erroneously refunded
- ITC wrongly availed
- ITC wrongly utilised
where the circumstances do not involve fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax.
The provision is therefore generally referred to as the non-fraud demand provision for the periods to which Section 73 applies.
For periods covered by the current Section 74A framework, the distinction between fraud and non-fraud cases is no longer used to decide whether Section 73 or Section 74 applies.
Applicable Period of Section 73
This is one of the most important aspects of the present Section 73.
Following the amendments introduced in 2024, Section 73 was restricted to tax periods up to Financial Year 2022-23. Section 74 was similarly restricted to FY 2022-23, while Section 74A was introduced for FY 2023-24 onwards.
Period-wise applicability
| Financial Year | Applicable demand provision |
|---|---|
| FY 2017-18 | Section 73 or Section 74, depending on facts |
| FY 2018-19 | Section 73 or Section 74, depending on facts |
| FY 2019-20 | Section 73 or Section 74, depending on facts |
| FY 2020-21 | Section 73 or Section 74, depending on facts |
| FY 2021-22 | Section 73 or Section 74, depending on facts |
| FY 2022-23 | Section 73 or Section 74, depending on facts |
| FY 2023-24 onwards | Section 74A |
For FY 2023-24 onwards, Section 74A applies regardless of whether the case involves fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts.
This distinction is essential when reading an old GST notice because the relevant financial year determines which statutory provision governs the demand.
Why was Section 73 introduced?
GST is based largely on self-assessment. Registered persons calculate their tax liability, report transactions in returns and claim eligible ITC.
However, errors can occur.
For example:
- A taxpayer may accidentally apply the wrong tax rate.
- A taxable supply may be omitted from the return.
- Tax may be paid under the wrong head.
- ITC may be claimed even though a statutory condition was not satisfied.
- A refund may be granted in excess.
- A calculation error may result in short payment.
Section 73 provides the statutory mechanism for dealing with such cases for the periods to which the section applies when the case does not involve fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax.
What situations are covered by Section 73?
Section 73 covers four broad categories.
1. Tax not paid
A taxpayer may have a GST liability but may fail to pay the tax.
For example, a taxable supply may have been correctly recorded in the books but accidentally omitted from the GST return.
If tax relating to that supply remains unpaid, the provisions of Section 73 may become relevant for the applicable financial year.
2. Tax short paid
Sometimes the taxpayer pays GST, but the amount paid is less than the amount actually payable.
This may happen because of:
- Incorrect tax calculation
- Wrong tax rate
- Partial reporting of turnover
- Incorrect valuation
- Mathematical error
- Other compliance mistakes
The unpaid balance can become subject to determination under Section 73 where the statutory conditions are satisfied.
3. Erroneous refund
Section 73 also covers situations where a taxpayer has received a refund that was not actually due or was granted for an amount greater than what was legally refundable.
The amount of erroneous refund can be recovered under the applicable demand provisions, along with applicable interest.
4. ITC wrongly availed or utilised
Section 73 also applies where input tax credit has been wrongly availed or utilised.
There is an important distinction between wrongly availed and wrongly utilised ITC.
A taxpayer may claim ITC incorrectly in the electronic credit ledger, but the consequences can depend on whether the credit was actually utilised for payment of tax.
The applicable interest provisions must therefore also be considered along with the demand provisions.
What does “other than fraud or wilful misstatement or suppression of facts” mean?
The traditional distinction between Sections 73 and 74 was based on the circumstances behind the tax shortfall.
Section 73 applied where the case did not involve:
- Fraud
- Wilful misstatement
- Suppression of facts to evade tax
Section 74 applied where the department alleged that the non-payment, short payment, erroneous refund or wrong ITC resulted from fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with an intention to evade tax.
For periods up to FY 2022-23, this distinction remains important.
For FY 2023-24 onwards, however, Section 74A has replaced the separate Section 73/74 framework for determining these demands.
Show Cause Notice under Section 73
Section 73 follows a show cause notice mechanism.
Where it appears to the proper officer that tax has not been paid or has been short paid, a refund has been erroneously granted, or ITC has been wrongly availed or utilised, the proper officer can issue a notice requiring the taxpayer to explain why the specified amount should not be paid.
The notice also deals with applicable:
- Tax
- Interest under Section 50
- Penalty under the applicable provisions
The taxpayer gets an opportunity to respond before the final determination is made.
This opportunity to respond is a fundamental part of the demand process.
What is the purpose of a GST show cause notice?
A show cause notice is not the final demand order.
Its purpose is to communicate the proposed liability and provide the taxpayer an opportunity to explain:
- Why tax is not payable;
- Why the amount calculated by the department is incorrect;
- Why the ITC should not be treated as wrongly availed or utilised;
- Why the refund should not be recovered;
- Whether the facts have been interpreted incorrectly;
- Whether supporting documents establish the taxpayer’s position.
The taxpayer can therefore submit a representation along with relevant documentary evidence.
Pre-notice communication and FORM GST DRC-01A
The CGST Rules also provide a mechanism through FORM GST DRC-01A for communicating the amount of tax, interest and penalty ascertained as payable before service of the formal notice under Section 73, where applicable.
Rule 142 provides for the relevant demand and recovery procedure, including DRC-01, DRC-01A, DRC-03, DRC-05, DRC-06 and DRC-07. The GST Council’s amendments following the introduction of Section 74A also updated these forms and rules to accommodate the new framework.
A taxpayer receiving such communication should carefully examine the underlying calculation rather than treating the communication as automatically establishing the final liability.
What should a taxpayer do after receiving a Section 73 notice?
A taxpayer should examine the notice carefully and reconcile the proposed demand with the underlying records.
Important documents may include:
- GST returns
- Books of account
- Tax invoices
- Purchase invoices
- Sales registers
- ITC reconciliation
- GSTR-2A/GSTR-2B data, as relevant to the period
- E-way bills
- Bank records
- Credit notes
- Debit notes
- Refund applications
- Refund sanction orders
- Agreements and contracts
- Other supporting documents
The taxpayer should identify whether the department’s calculation is:
- Correct;
- Partly correct;
- Based on incomplete information; or
- Not supported by the actual records.
A proper factual and legal response can then be submitted within the prescribed time.
Can the taxpayer pay before the notice is issued?
Yes, the Section 73 framework contains a mechanism allowing the person chargeable with tax to make payment of tax and interest before service of notice.
Under Section 73(5), a person may, on the basis of his own ascertainment or as ascertained by the proper officer, pay the applicable tax and interest before service of notice and inform the proper officer.
The statutory consequences depend on the circumstances and whether the required amount has been paid.
The rules also provide procedures through FORM GST DRC-03 and related forms.
Payment after receiving the Section 73 notice
The law also provides a mechanism for payment after service of the notice.
Where the person pays the tax and interest within the prescribed statutory period, the proceedings relating to that notice may be concluded in accordance with Section 73 and Rule 142.
This is one reason taxpayers should not ignore a Section 73 notice.
A timely examination of the demand may allow the taxpayer to:
- Accept a genuine liability;
- Correct an error;
- Submit evidence;
- Dispute an incorrect demand; or
- Make payment where legally appropriate.
Determination of tax by the proper officer
If the taxpayer submits a representation, the proper officer must consider it.
After considering the representation, the proper officer determines the amount of:
- Tax
- Interest
- Penalty
payable by the person and issues an order.
The final order is therefore different from the initial show cause notice.
The notice contains the proposed liability, while the order represents the determination after consideration of the taxpayer’s response.
Penalty under Section 73
For the periods governed by Section 73, the general penalty structure is different from the penalty framework that applied under Section 74.
Historically, Section 73 provided a 10% penalty of the tax due or ₹10,000, whichever is higher, subject to the specific statutory provisions applicable to the relevant stage of proceedings.
The provision also contained different consequences where payment was made before notice, after notice and after the final order.
This is an important difference from Section 74, where the penalty framework for fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts was substantially more severe.
The GST Council’s materials expressly describe the Section 73 penalty as 10% of the tax demanded, while Section 74 involved a higher penalty framework.
Section 73 and Interest under Section 50
Tax determined under Section 73 can also carry interest under Section 50.
Interest is different from penalty.
Tax
The actual GST liability that was not paid or was short paid.
Interest
The statutory amount payable because the tax remained unpaid or because of applicable wrong ITC utilisation.
Penalty
A statutory consequence imposed under the relevant provisions.
Therefore, a Section 73 demand may involve more than just the principal tax amount.
The exact interest calculation depends on the nature of the liability and the applicable provisions of Section 50 and the rules.
Time limit for issuing a Section 73 notice
For the periods covered by Section 73, the statutory time limit for the final order is generally three years from:
- The due date for furnishing the annual return for the relevant financial year, in cases involving tax not paid, short paid or ITC wrongly availed or utilised; or
- The date of erroneous refund, in cases involving erroneous refund.
Section 73(2) requires the show cause notice to be issued at least three months before the time limit specified for issuance of the order under Section 73(10).
Consequently, the ordinary statutory period for issuing the notice works out to 2 years and 9 months from the relevant annual-return due date, or 2 years and 9 months from the date of erroneous refund in an erroneous-refund case. CBIC has specifically clarified this calculation.
Example of the Section 73 limitation period
Suppose a Section 73 demand relates to a financial year for which the annual return was due on 31 December.
The ordinary Section 73 order deadline would be three years from that due date.
Because the notice must be issued at least three months before the order deadline, the ordinary notice deadline would be approximately 2 years and 9 months from the relevant annual-return due date.
The exact limitation calculation should always be checked against:
- The financial year concerned;
- The applicable annual-return due date;
- Any statutory extension;
- Any applicable court order or notification;
- The nature of the demand; and
- The date of erroneous refund, where relevant.
Special extensions for older financial years
The statutory timelines for some of the earliest GST years were specifically extended through notifications.
For example, the GST Council recorded that Notification No. 09/2023-Central Tax extended the Section 73(10) order deadlines for certain demands relating to:
- FY 2017-18 — up to 31 December 2023
- FY 2018-19 — up to 31 March 2024
- FY 2019-20 — up to 30 June 2024
These extensions were associated with the impact of COVID-19-related delays and the resulting backlog in scrutiny, audit and assessment work.
Because these dates have already passed, they are mainly relevant when understanding historical Section 73 proceedings and whether an order was issued within the applicable period.
Section 73 and self-assessed tax
Section 73 also contains a specific provision concerning self-assessed tax or an amount collected as tax that remains unpaid.
Where such an amount is not paid within 30 days from the due date of payment, the statutory penalty consequences under Section 73(11) become relevant.
This is important because a taxpayer cannot necessarily treat an unpaid self-assessed liability in the same way as an ordinary disputed tax determination.
For example, if a taxpayer has declared a particular tax liability in its return but does not pay the amount, separate statutory consequences may apply.
Section 73 and wrongly availed ITC
Input tax credit is one of the most common areas in which GST demand proceedings can arise.
ITC may be questioned where, for example:
- The underlying supply does not satisfy the statutory conditions;
- The invoice does not meet prescribed requirements;
- The goods or services were not received;
- The credit relates to a blocked category;
- The credit was claimed in excess;
- Credit was claimed more than once;
- A required condition for claiming credit was not satisfied.
Whether a particular ITC claim is legally available depends on the facts and the statutory provisions applicable to the relevant financial year.
Where the department determines that ITC was wrongly availed or utilised for a period covered by Section 73, the amount may be demanded through the Section 73 mechanism.
Wrongly availed ITC vs wrongly utilised ITC
These expressions should not be treated as identical.
Wrongly availed ITC generally concerns credit that should not have been taken in the first place.
Wrongly utilised ITC concerns credit that has been used to discharge a tax liability.
This distinction can affect the interest consequences under Section 50 and the applicable rules.
Therefore, when responding to an ITC-related Section 73 notice, a taxpayer should examine both:
- Whether the credit was legally available; and
- Whether the credit was actually utilised.
Section 73 and erroneous refund
Section 73 also covers erroneous refunds.
Suppose a taxpayer applies for a refund of ₹10 lakh but, due to an error, ₹12 lakh is refunded.
The additional ₹2 lakh may constitute an erroneous refund and can become subject to recovery under the applicable statutory provisions.
The limitation calculation for an erroneous refund is linked to the date of erroneous refund, rather than the due date of the annual return.
Section 73 and Section 75
Section 75 contains general provisions relating to determination of tax.
Section 75 becomes important when applying Sections 73 and 74 because it deals with matters such as:
- General provisions relating to tax determination;
- Opportunity of hearing;
- Adjournments;
- Time limits;
- Orders;
- Situations where an order under Section 74 may be treated differently if fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression is not established.
The GST Council has specifically clarified that where proceedings originally initiated under Section 74 are found not to involve fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression, Section 75(2) can require re-determination under Section 73, subject to the applicable Section 73 limitation period.
What happens if a Section 74 case is found not to involve fraud?
For periods to which the old Sections 73 and 74 apply, this is an important issue.
Suppose a notice was issued under Section 74 alleging fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts.
Later, during appellate or judicial proceedings, the allegation is not established.
Section 75(2) provides the mechanism for re-determination under Section 73.
However, the Section 73 limitation period remains relevant. CBIC Circular No. 185/17/2022-GST explains that where a Section 74 notice was issued beyond the applicable Section 73 limitation period, and the case is subsequently treated as a Section 73 matter, the proceeding can be affected by the Section 73 limitation.
Section 73 and FORM GST DRC-01
Rule 142 provides that a summary of a notice issued under Section 73 is electronically uploaded in FORM GST DRC-01.
The form contains the details of the proposed demand.
The taxpayer’s response is generally furnished through FORM GST DRC-06 under the prescribed procedure.
After the final order, a summary of the order is uploaded electronically in FORM GST DRC-07, specifying the amount of tax, interest and penalty payable, as applicable.
Important GST demand forms
| Form | General purpose |
|---|---|
| DRC-01A | Pre-notice intimation of ascertained liability, where applicable |
| DRC-01 | Summary of demand notice |
| DRC-03 | Intimation of payment |
| DRC-04 | Acknowledgement of payment in prescribed circumstances |
| DRC-05 | Intimation of conclusion of proceedings |
| DRC-06 | Reply/representation to notice |
| DRC-07 | Summary of demand order |
| DRC-08 | Summary of rectification/withdrawal order |
The exact form and procedure depend on the stage and nature of the proceeding.
Can a taxpayer contest a Section 73 demand?
Yes.
A taxpayer has an opportunity to make a representation against the proposed liability.
The response may challenge:
- The facts;
- The calculation;
- The tax rate;
- The classification;
- The ITC denial;
- The turnover considered;
- The interest calculation;
- The limitation;
- The applicability of Section 73;
- The amount of penalty;
- The interpretation of the relevant provision.
The taxpayer should support the response with relevant records and documentary evidence.
Example of a Section 73 demand
Suppose ABC Traders had taxable sales of ₹1 crore during a financial year.
Because of an accounting error, ₹5 lakh of taxable turnover was omitted from the GST return.
The taxpayer later identifies the mistake.
Assume the additional GST liability on the omitted turnover is ₹90,000.
If the financial year falls within the period governed by Section 73 and there is no allegation or establishment of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax, the department may determine the additional tax under Section 73.
The taxpayer may also have to pay applicable interest and penalty according to the statutory provisions.
Another example: Wrong ITC
Suppose a registered person inadvertently claims ₹2 lakh of ITC that is not legally available.
The department identifies the discrepancy during scrutiny or audit.
If the relevant financial year falls within the Section 73 period and the case does not involve fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax, the department may initiate proceedings under Section 73.
The taxpayer can respond by:
- Producing documents supporting eligibility;
- Demonstrating that the credit was actually eligible;
- Correcting an accounting or reporting error; or
- Accepting and paying the legally payable amount.
Section 73 vs Section 74
For periods up to FY 2022-23, the key distinction can be summarised as follows:
| Particular | Section 73 | Section 74 |
|---|---|---|
| Applicable period | Up to FY 2022-23 | Up to FY 2022-23 |
| Main situation | Non-fraud cases | Fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax |
| Tax not paid | Covered | Covered |
| Tax short paid | Covered | Covered |
| Erroneous refund | Covered | Covered |
| Wrong ITC | Covered | Covered |
| Limitation for order | Generally 3 years | Generally 5 years |
| Notice period | At least 3 months before order deadline | At least 6 months before order deadline |
| Penalty framework | Lower than Section 74 | Higher penalty framework |
For FY 2023-24 onwards, neither Section 73 nor Section 74 is the normal demand provision for these matters; Section 74A applies.
Section 73 vs Section 74A
The modern GST demand framework is better understood through this comparison:
| Particular | Section 73 | Section 74A |
|---|---|---|
| Applicable period | Up to FY 2022-23 | FY 2023-24 onwards |
| Fraud distinction | Relevant to applicability | No separate Section 73/74 distinction |
| Tax not paid | Covered | Covered |
| Tax short paid | Covered | Covered |
| Erroneous refund | Covered | Covered |
| Wrong ITC | Covered | Covered |
| Notice time limit | Existing Section 73 limitation | 42 months from relevant annual-return due date or erroneous refund date |
| Order time limit | Generally 3 years from relevant annual-return due date or erroneous refund | Generally 12 months from notice, subject to statutory extension provisions |
| Penalty | Section 73 framework | Section 74A penalty framework |
The introduction of Section 74A was intended to create a common demand framework for FY 2023-24 onwards irrespective of whether the case involved fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression.
Section 128A and Section 73
Another important development for historical Section 73 demands was Section 128A, introduced through the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024.
It provided a conditional waiver of interest or penalty, or both, for specified demands relating to FY 2017-18, FY 2018-19 and FY 2019-20 where the prescribed conditions were satisfied.
The GST Council recommended a payment date of 31 March 2025, and the related provisions were brought into the GST framework from November 2024.
Because the specified payment date has passed, Section 128A should now primarily be understood as a historical relief provision rather than a currently open payment window.
It is also important to distinguish Section 128A from Section 73 itself. Section 73 determines the tax demand; Section 128A provided a special statutory relief mechanism for specified old-period demands.
Why limitation is important in Section 73 proceedings
Limitation is one of the most important issues in GST demand cases.
A taxpayer should not look only at the amount mentioned in the notice. The taxpayer should also examine:
- Relevant financial year;
- Annual return due date;
- Date of erroneous refund, if applicable;
- Date of show cause notice;
- Date of order;
- Any applicable extension notification;
- Whether the notice was issued within the statutory period;
- Whether Section 73 or another provision applies.
A demand can involve substantial tax amounts, but the statutory limitation provisions still have to be considered.
Common mistakes taxpayers make in Section 73 cases
Ignoring the notice
A Section 73 notice should never simply be ignored.
Failure to respond can result in the officer proceeding on the basis of available material.
Checking only the tax amount
The taxpayer should examine tax, interest, penalty and limitation separately.
Not reconciling the department’s figures
The figures in a notice should be compared with:
- Books;
- Returns;
- Invoices;
- ITC records;
- Payment records;
- Refund records.
Assuming every ITC difference is automatically wrong
An ITC difference should be examined with reference to the applicable law and documentary evidence.
Ignoring the financial year
This is particularly important after the introduction of Section 74A.
A taxpayer should first identify the financial year to determine which demand provision applies.
Treating a notice as a final order
A show cause notice is not itself the final determination of liability.
The taxpayer has an opportunity to submit a representation before the final order is issued.
Practical checklist for a Section 73 notice
When a taxpayer receives a Section 73 notice, the following checklist can be useful:
- Identify the financial year involved.
- Check whether the period falls within Section 73.
- Verify whether the issue concerns tax, erroneous refund or ITC.
- Check the legal basis stated in the notice.
- Verify the tax calculation.
- Reconcile the demand with books and GST returns.
- Check the interest calculation.
- Check the penalty calculation.
- Examine the limitation period.
- Collect supporting documents.
- Prepare a point-by-point response.
- Submit the response within the prescribed period.
- Maintain proof of submission.
- Attend any hearing where required.
- Consider the appropriate appellate remedy if an adverse order is ultimately passed.
Key points of Section 73
The most important points about Section 73 can be summarised as follows:
- Section 73 deals with determination of tax not paid or short paid.
- It also covers erroneous refunds.
- It covers ITC wrongly availed or utilised.
- For its applicable period, it concerns cases other than fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax.
- Section 73 currently applies to periods up to FY 2022-23.
- Section 74 similarly applies to fraud-related cases up to FY 2022-23.
- Section 74A applies to FY 2023-24 onwards.
- A show cause notice is issued under Section 73.
- The taxpayer gets an opportunity to submit a representation.
- The proper officer determines the tax, interest and penalty after considering the representation.
- Section 73 contains specific provisions for payment before notice and after notice.
- The ordinary Section 73 order limitation is three years from the relevant annual-return due date or from the date of erroneous refund.
- The notice ordinarily has to be issued at least three months before the order limitation expires.
- This results in the commonly stated 2 years and 9 months notice limitation for ordinary Section 73 cases.
- Special statutory extensions were provided for certain early GST financial years.
- Rule 142 provides the procedural framework for demand notices and related electronic forms.
- DRC-01 is used for the electronic summary of a demand notice.
- DRC-06 is used for the reply/representation.
- DRC-07 contains the summary of the final order.
- Section 73 should not be used for FY 2023-24 onwards because those periods fall under Section 74A.
Conclusion
Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 is an important provision governing the determination of GST demands where tax was not paid or was short paid, a refund was erroneously granted, or ITC was wrongly availed or utilised, in cases that do not involve fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax.
However, the applicability of Section 73 has changed significantly. Following the 2024 amendments, Section 73 is now restricted to periods up to Financial Year 2022-23. For FY 2023-24 onwards, Section 74A provides the applicable demand mechanism irrespective of whether the case involves fraud or other specified conduct.
For Section 73 periods, the proper officer follows a notice-and-determination process. The taxpayer receives an opportunity to explain the proposed liability, submit documents and challenge incorrect calculations before the final order is issued.
The limitation period is another critical aspect. Generally, the order under Section 73 had to be issued within three years from the relevant annual-return due date or from the date of erroneous refund, while the notice had to be issued at least three months before the order deadline.
For taxpayers dealing with an old GST demand, the most important steps are to identify the correct financial year, determine the applicable statutory provision, verify the limitation period, reconcile the department’s calculations with the books and returns, and provide a properly supported response within the prescribed time.
Frequently Asked Questions on Section 73 of the CGST Act
Based on Google's Helpful Content System, this article emphasizes user value, transparency, and accuracy. It incorporates principles of E-E-A-T (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness).
Why Choose Sarkari Bakery?
Official Information
Government schemes & banking information based on official sources.
Step-by-Step Guides
Simple application process explained for every service.
Regular Updates
Content updated whenever official rules or services change.
People-First Content
Helpful, transparent and user-focused content.
Pingback: Section 72 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Officers to Assist Proper Officers - Sarkari Bakery