9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (9) TMI 1390 - HC - GSTChallenge to action on the part of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs in issuance of a notification bearing No. 56/2023 dated 28.12.2023 - validity of notification extending the time limit for passing orders under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - It prima facie appears that the notification bearing No. 56/2023 is not in consonance with the provisions of 168 (A) of the Central GST Act, 2017. If the said notification cannot stand the scrutiny of law, all consequential actions so taken on the basis of such notification would also fail. This Court duly takes note of the submission of Mr. S.C Keyal, the learned Standing counsel that the Petitioner would be entitled to the reliefs as proposed in the Financial Bill 2024. In addition to that, this Court also finds that an examination would be required as regards the applicability of the force majeure in respect to the notification bearing No. 56/2023 taking into account 7/7 the contents of the Minutes of the 49th Meeting of the GST Council. However for the purpose of deciding the same, this Court is of the opinion that an opportunity has to be granted to the Respondent Authorities to place on record their stand as well as bringing on record the materials on which they claim the applicability of the force majeure. This Court is of the opinion, that the Petitioner herein is entitled to an interim protection pending the notice. Till the next date, no coercive action shall be taken on the basis of impugned assessment order dated 30.04.2024 - The Respondents are directed to file their affidavits on or before 13.09.2024.
Issues:
1. Validity of the notification issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs under Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017 without recommendation from the GST Council. 2. Whether the notification extending the time limit for passing orders under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act, 2017 is ultra vires the law. 3. Applicability of force majeure in the extension of time limit for assessment proceedings. 4. Interpretation of provisions under the Assam Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 in relation to notifications issued under the CGST Act, 2017. Detailed Analysis: 1. The Petitioner challenged the validity of a notification issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs without a recommendation from the GST Council, as required under Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017. The Petitioner argued that the notification, which extended the time limit for passing orders under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act, 2017, was issued without proper authority. The Petitioner contended that the notification was ultra vires the CGST Act, 2017 due to the absence of a recommendation from the GST Council, as mandated by law. 2. The Petitioner further argued that the reasons cited for the extension of the time limit, such as lack of manpower for audit and assessment, did not constitute a force majeure event. The Petitioner asserted that the extension granted by the notification was not justified under the circumstances presented, as the COVID period had ended, and previous extensions had already been granted. The Petitioner claimed that the notification was invalid on the grounds that it did not meet the criteria for invoking force majeure under Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017. 3. The Petitioner also raised concerns regarding the applicability of the notification under the Assam Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The Petitioner argued that the notification, which extended the time limit for assessment proceedings, could not be applied under the Assam GST Act, as it did not align with the provisions of Section 11(4) of the AGST Act, 2017. The Petitioner contended that the State GST Authorities could not enforce a notification that was ultra vires the CGST Act, 2017 and did not fall within the scope of the Assam GST Act. 4. The Court acknowledged the arguments presented by both parties and observed that the notification in question did not comply with the provisions of Section 168A of the Central GST Act, 2017. The Court noted that if the notification was found to be invalid, all actions taken based on it would also be deemed invalid. The Court directed the Respondent Authorities to file affidavits and provide their stand on the applicability of force majeure in relation to the notification. Pending further proceedings, the Court granted interim protection to the Petitioner, prohibiting coercive actions based on the impugned assessment order.
|
