2025 (3) TMI 173 - HC - GST

Challenge to Notifications extending time limits for issuing show cause notice u/s 73/74- Extension of time limits specified under the CGST Act by Notification issued under Section 168A of CGST Act - HELD THAT - It is found that in a similar matter in the case of Aspect Integrated IT Pvt. Ltd Vs. Union of India 2024 (7) TMI 1601 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT the Nagpur Bench of this Court has directed the Respondents in the said matter not to take any coercive action against the Petitioner. Here also since the issue is whether the Notifications are valid and whether the impugned order could have been passed (especially if Notifications dated 28th December 2023 and 16th January 2024 are set aside), we find that a strong prima facie case is made out for granting interim relief to the Petitioner. Liberty granted to the parties to apply in the event the matter before the Hon ble Supreme Court is disposed of one way or the other - This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court.

Summary

The Writ Petition challenges the validity of notifications issued under Section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), specifically Notification No. 9/2023-Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023, Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023, Notification No. 9/2023-State Tax dated 24th May, 2023, and Notification No. 56/2023-State Tax dated 16th January, 2024. The Petitioner argues that the latter two notifications were not issued on the recommendation of the GST Council, as required by Section 168A, rendering them illegal and ultra vires. The impugned Order No. E-536/1106/LTU-03/GST Audit/2019-20/2024-25/B-174, Mumbai, dated 29th August, 2024, passed by Respondent No. 3 under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act, is also challenged as it falls beyond the extended time limits set by the notifications.The main contention revolves around the legality of the notifications issued under Section 168A and whether they were recommended by the GST Council. The Petitioner argues noncompliance with the recommendation requirement, while the Respondent contends that Section 168A was enacted to address exceptional circumstances like wars and pandemics, including the Covid-19 pandemic, which qualifies as a force majeure event. The Court acknowledges the arguable nature of the issues raised, noting that similar matters are pending before the Supreme Court.In granting interim relief, the Court refers to a previous case where the Nagpur Bench directed the Respondents not to take coercive action against the Petitioner. Considering the validity of the notifications and the implications on the impugned order, the Court finds a strong prima facie case for granting interim relief. Consequently, the Court directs the Respondents to refrain from acting upon the impugned order pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition.The Court issues Rule, with certain Respondents waiving service and others receiving notice. The decision to grant interim relief is based on the need to assess the validity of the notifications and the potential impact on the impugned order. The order is digitally signed for immediate action, with parties granted liberty to apply based on developments in the Supreme Court proceedings.