9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (10) TMI 273 - HC - GSTChallenge to action on the part of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs in issuance of a Notification bearing No. 56/2023 dated 28.12.2023 - Interpretation of the term force majeure in relation to the extension of time limits for passing orders under the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - This Court having heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties is of the opinion that it prima facie appears that the Notification bearing No.56/2023 is not in consonance with the provisions of Section 168 (A) of the Central GST Act, 2017. If the said notification cannot stand the scrutiny of law, all consequential actions so taken on the basis of such notification would also fail. This Court is of the opinion, that the petitioners herein are entitled to an interim protection pending the notice. Till the next date, no coercive action shall be taken on the basis of impugned assessment order dated 23.04.2024 - The respondents are directed to file their affidavits on or before 15.09.2024. List accordingly.
Issues:
Challenge to the issuance of a Notification by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs under Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017 without a recommendation from the GST Council. Interpretation of the term "force majeure" in relation to the extension of time limits for passing orders under the CGST Act, 2017. Applicability of the Notification bearing No. 56/2023 dated 28.12.2023 to the Assam GST authorities. Examination of the validity of the impugned assessment order dated 23.04.2024 in light of the ultra vires Notification. Analysis: The petitioners challenged the Notification issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs under Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017, citing the lack of a recommendation from the GST Council, which is a mandatory requirement for such extensions. The petitioners argued that the Notification No. 56/2023 dated 28.12.2023 extending time limits for passing orders under the CGST Act, 2017 was ultra vires as it lacked the necessary recommendation from the GST Council, as per Section 168A. The petitioners contended that the extension was not justified as the reasons provided, such as lack of manpower due to the COVID period, did not constitute "force majeure" as required under the law. The petitioners further argued that the Assam GST authorities could not rely on the same Notification (No. 56/2023) as it was ultra vires the CGST Act, 2017, and the Assam GST Act, 2017 did not provide for a similar extension. The impugned assessment order dated 23.04.2024 was challenged on the grounds of the invalidity of the extending Notification and the lack of a corresponding notification under the Assam GST Act, 2017. The respondents, on the other hand, defended the Notification by stating that steps were being taken for GST Council ratification and pending amendments through a new Finance Bill. The Court observed that prima facie, the Notification No. 56/2023 appeared to be inconsistent with Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017. Consequently, the Court granted interim protection to the petitioners, restraining coercive actions based on the impugned assessment order until the next date. The respondents were directed to file their affidavits by a specified date for further proceedings. The judgment highlighted the importance of compliance with statutory provisions and the potential repercussions of actions taken based on an ultra vires notification. This comprehensive analysis of the judgment showcases the legal arguments, interpretations, and the Court's decision regarding the challenges raised by the petitioners against the Notification and the subsequent assessment order.
|
