9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 92 - HC - GSTValidity and constitutionality of Section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 (CGST Act) - insertion of Section 168A in the CGST Act through the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act 2020 (TOLA) - validity of notifications extending timelines for compliance under Section 73(10) of the CGST Act particularly in light of the COVID-19 pandemic - HELD THAT - Hon ble Supreme Court vide order dated 21.02.2025 passed in SLP-4240-2025 titled as M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV Vs. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and Others 2025 (4) TMI 60 - SC ORDER has held that Issue notice on the SLP as also on the prayer for interim relief returnable for 07.03.2025. It is refrained from giving opinion with respect to the vires of Section 168-A of the Act as well as the notifications issued in purported exercise of power under Section 168-A of the Act which have been challenged and it is directed that all these present connected cases shall be governed by the judgment passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court and the decision thereto shall be binding on these cases too. Since the matter is pending before the Hon ble Supreme Court the interim order passed in the present cases would continue to operate and would be governed by the final adjudication by the Supreme Court on the issues in the aforesaid SLP-4240-2025. SLP disposed off.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The primary issues addressed in this judgment revolve around the validity and constitutionality of Section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) and the notifications issued under it. Specifically, the court examined:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Validity of Section 168A of the CGST Act: The court considered whether the insertion of Section 168A via TOLA was valid, given that TOLA was not introduced as a 'Money Bill' under Article 109 of the Constitution. The petitioners argued that the insertion amounted to an amendment of the CGST Act without following the necessary legislative procedures, rendering it ultra vires. The court noted that Section 168A was introduced to address compliance issues during extraordinary situations like the COVID-19 pandemic, allowing the government to extend timelines. However, the court refrained from making a determination on the vires of Section 168A, as the matter was pending before the Supreme Court. Validity of Notifications under Section 168A: The petitioners challenged several notifications extending compliance timelines under Section 73(10) of the CGST Act, arguing they were issued without the requisite recommendation of the GST Council and did not meet the conditions of "force majeure" as required by Section 168A. The court examined the procedural history of these notifications, noting that some were issued by the CBIC rather than the Central Government, raising questions about jurisdiction. The petitioners contended that the GIC and Law Committee acted beyond their authority by recommending extensions, which should have been policy decisions reserved for the GST Council. Ultimately, the court did not rule on the validity of these notifications, deferring to the Supreme Court's pending decision. Role of the GST Council and GIC: The court considered arguments regarding the scope of the GST Council's recommendations and the GIC's authority to make decisions on urgent procedural issues. Petitioners argued that the GIC overstepped its remit by making policy decisions, which should have been deliberated by the GST Council. The court highlighted the procedural framework established in GST Council meetings, which limited the GIC's role to urgent procedural matters, not substantive policy issues. Distinction between Central Government and CBIC Powers: The petitioners argued that notifications under Section 168A should be issued by the Central Government, not the CBIC, as the two entities have distinct roles under the CGST Act. The court acknowledged this distinction but did not make a definitive ruling, given the pending Supreme Court case. Applicability of Supreme Court's Suo Motu Orders: The court considered whether the Supreme Court's orders extending limitation periods due to COVID-19 applied to GST compliance timelines. Petitioners argued that the orders were limited to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, not statutory compliance activities. The court noted this contention but deferred to the Supreme Court's broader determination. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The court refrained from making final determinations on the issues presented, citing the pending Supreme Court case that would address similar questions. The court's interim order maintained the status quo, allowing proceedings to continue without final orders until the Supreme Court's decision. Key principles discussed include:
The court's decision to defer to the Supreme Court underscores the principle of judicial discipline and the importance of uniformity in legal interpretations across jurisdictions.
|
