9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 1139 - HC - GSTRecovery of tax not paid or short paid or of input tax credit wrongly availed or utilized - Ineligible Input Tax Credit ITC - Challenge to Notifications u/s 168A of CGST Act - HELD THAT - In the Explanation to Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017, the expression force majeure means a case of war, epidemic, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or any other calamity caused by nature or otherwise affecting the implementation of any of the provisions of the Act. It is noticed that the time limit under sub-section 10 of Section 73 of the CGCT Act was extended once prior to the Notification dated 31.03.2023. The Hon ble Allahabad High Court, the Hon ble Gujarat High Court, the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court, the Hon ble Madras High Court and this Court, have provided interim reliefs to the noticees/assessees by inter alia observing that the proceedings in pursuance of the impugned Show Cause Notice may proceed but no final order shall be passed and if final order is passed already, no recovery is to be effected. The said interim orders are stated to be in operation till date. Taking note of the fact that similar issues are being examined by different High Courts including this Court; this Court is inclined to provide that till further orders of this Court, the recovery of the amount assessed against the petitioner by the Order-in-Original shall not be enforced.
Issues involved: Challenge to Notifications u/s 168A of CGST Act, Order-in-Original u/s 73 of CGST Act.
In a writ petition u/s Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenged Notification no. 09/2023 u/s 168A, Notification no. 56/2023-Central Tax, and an Order-in-Original dated 30.04.2024 u/s 73 of the CGST Act. The Notifications extended time limits for issuance of recovery orders under Section 73 of the CGST Act. The petitioner argued that the extension was unjustified post-2022 due to the absence of a COVID-19 pandemic, citing a Supreme Court order limiting extension to 28.02.2022. The petitioner also referenced interim protections granted by various High Courts to similar cases. The Notifications were issued u/s 168A of the CGST Act, extending time limits for recovery orders u/s 73. The petitioner contended that post-2022, the pandemic was not a valid reason for extension, citing a Supreme Court order limiting extensions. The petitioner also highlighted interim protections granted by multiple High Courts to similar cases. The petitioner challenged Notifications u/s 168A and an Order-in-Original u/s 73 of the CGST Act in a writ petition u/s Article 226. The Notifications extended time limits for recovery orders u/s 73. The petitioner argued against the post-2022 extension, citing a Supreme Court order and interim protections granted by various High Courts. The Court noted the petitioner's arguments against the post-2022 extension of time limits for recovery orders u/s 73 of the CGST Act, based on a Supreme Court order and interim protections granted by other High Courts to similar cases. The Court decided to withhold enforcement of the recovery amount assessed in the Order-in-Original until further orders, considering ongoing examination of similar issues by different High Courts.
|
