Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2025 (1) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2025 (1) TMI 728 - HC - GST


1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

  • Whether the Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28.12.2023, issued under Section 168-A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is ultra vires the provisions of the CGST Act?
  • Whether the lack of a corresponding notification under the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, renders the Central Notification invalid or unenforceable?
  • Whether the petitioner can seek relief via a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, given the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act?

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Validity of Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax

  • Relevant legal framework and precedents: The primary legal provision in question is Section 168-A of the CGST Act, which allows for the extension of time limits in certain circumstances. The petitioner also referenced a decision by the Gauhati High Court, which declared a similar notification ultra vires.
  • Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court noted that the petitioner challenged the notification on the grounds of it being ultra vires due to the absence of a corresponding state notification. However, the court found that the mere absence of a state notification does not automatically render the central notification ultra vires.
  • Key evidence and findings: The petitioner relied on the lack of a corresponding state notification and previous judicial decisions. However, the court found no substantial evidence or legal basis to declare the central notification ultra vires solely on these grounds.
  • Application of law to facts: The court applied the principles of statutory interpretation and found that the central notification was issued within the powers conferred by Section 168-A of the CGST Act.
  • Treatment of competing arguments: The court considered the petitioner's argument regarding the necessity of a state notification but found it insufficient to declare the central notification ultra vires.
  • Conclusions: The court concluded that the notification was not ultra vires the CGST Act.

Issue 2: Lack of Corresponding State Notification

  • Relevant legal framework and precedents: The petitioner argued that the absence of a state notification under the SGST Act rendered the central notification unenforceable.
  • Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court held that the absence of a corresponding state notification does not invalidate the central notification, as both operate under separate legislative frameworks.
  • Key evidence and findings: The court found no statutory requirement mandating simultaneous issuance of state notifications to validate central notifications.
  • Application of law to facts: The court applied the principle that central and state notifications can operate independently under their respective legislative frameworks.
  • Treatment of competing arguments: The court rejected the petitioner's argument, emphasizing the independence of central and state legislative actions.
  • Conclusions: The court concluded that the lack of a state notification does not affect the validity of the central notification.

Issue 3: Availability of Alternative Remedy

  • Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 107 of the CGST Act provides an appellate remedy against orders passed under the Act.
  • Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court emphasized the availability of an alternative remedy as a bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
  • Key evidence and findings: The court noted that the petitioner had not exhausted the appellate remedy provided under the CGST Act.
  • Application of law to facts: The court applied the principle that writ jurisdiction is not ordinarily exercised when an alternative statutory remedy is available.
  • Treatment of competing arguments: The court dismissed the petitioner's argument for direct writ relief, citing the availability of an effective alternative remedy.
  • Conclusions: The court concluded that the petitioner should pursue the available appellate remedy.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

  • Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "The mere absence of a corresponding state notification does not automatically render the central notification ultra vires."
  • Core principles established: The independence of central and state notifications under their respective legislative frameworks; the principle of exhausting alternative remedies before seeking writ jurisdiction.
  • Final determinations on each issue: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the central notification was valid, the absence of a state notification did not affect its enforceability, and the petitioner should seek the alternative appellate remedy.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates