2025 (3) TMI 174 - HC - GST

Vires of extension of time limits specified under the CGST Act - Chellenge to N/N. 9/2023-Central Tax dated 31st March 2023 N/N. 56/2023 Central Tax dated 28th December 2023 N/N. 9/2023-State Tax dated 24th May 2023 and N/N. 56/2023 dated 16th January 2024 - HELD THAT - In a similar matter in the case of 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) 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.

Summary

The Writ Petition challenges notifications issued under Section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 by the Union of India and the State of Maharashtra. The main contention is that subsequent notifications extending time limits were not issued on the recommendation of the GST Council, rendering them illegal and ultra vires. The impugned order is also challenged as it relies on these notifications. The Petitioner argues that the Telangana High Court favored their position, while the State argues that Section 168A accounts for events like pandemics such as Covid-19. The Court finds the issues arguable and grants interim relief to the Petitioner pending further proceedings.The key legal question in this case is the validity of notifications issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act without the recommendation of the GST Council. The Petitioner contends that subsequent notifications were not recommended by the Council, making them illegal. The State argues that Section 168A covers events like the Covid-19 pandemic, justifying the notifications. The Court acknowledges the arguable nature of the issues raised.The Court's analysis considers the purpose of Section 168A, enacted to address extraordinary circumstances like pandemics. The Petitioner relies on a decision of the Gauhati High Court and challenges the Telangana High Court's ruling, which is under review by the Supreme Court. The State argues that the Covid-19 pandemic qualifies as a force majeure event under Section 168A, justifying the notifications. The Court finds merit in the Petitioner's arguments and grants interim relief, citing a similar case where coercive action was stayed pending resolution of the validity of notifications.In conclusion, the Court acknowledges the complexity of the issues raised in the Writ Petition and grants interim relief to the Petitioner. The case raises significant questions regarding the interpretation of Section 168A and the authority of the GST Council in issuing notifications under the CGST Act. The Court's decision to issue Rule and provide interim relief reflects the need for further examination of the legal issues at hand, particularly in light of ongoing proceedings before the Supreme Court.