2025 (3) TMI 175 - 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 the legality 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 dated 16th January, 2024. The Petitioner argues that while the initial Notifications were issued on the recommendation of the GST Council, the subsequent Notifications were not, rendering them illegal and ultra vires. The impugned Order dated 19.08.2024 is also challenged as it falls beyond the extended periods specified in the initial Notifications.The main contention revolves around whether the Notifications extending time limits under Section 168A were issued in compliance with the recommendation of the GST Council. The Petitioner asserts that non-compliance with this requirement renders the subsequent Notifications invalid. The Respondent, on the other hand, argues that Section 168A was enacted to address events like wars and pandemics, including the Covid-19 Pandemic, as force majeure events, justifying the issuance of the Notifications.The Court acknowledges the arguable nature of the issues raised in the Writ Petition, noting that similar matters are pending before the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Court issues Rule and grants interim relief to the Petitioner, restraining the Respondents from taking coercive action until the matter is finally disposed of. The Court also allows the parties to apply based on the outcome of the Supreme Court proceedings.In summary, the core legal questions revolve around the validity of Notifications issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act, particularly concerning compliance with the GST Council's recommendations. The Court acknowledges the complexity of the issues and grants interim relief to the Petitioner pending further proceedings, considering the prima facie case made out by the Petitioner.