2025 (3) TMI 250 - 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 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) 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 validity of certain notifications issued under Section 168A of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) by the Union of India and the State of Maharashtra. The main contention is that while some notifications were issued on the recommendation of the GST Council, subsequent notifications were not, rendering them illegal and ultra vires. The impugned order is also challenged as it was passed beyond the extended period prescribed by the notifications.The Petitioner argues that the issue has been addressed by the Gauhati High Court and the Telangana High Court, with the latter's decision being influenced by a Supreme Court order. The Petitioner seeks admission of the Writ Petition, issuance of a rule, and interim relief.On the other hand, the State argues that Section 168A was enacted to address situations like wars and pandemics, including the Covid-19 Pandemic, as force majeure events. The State contends that the notifications were justified under Section 168A, but is unsure if they were recommended by the GST Council.The Court finds the issues raised in the Writ Petition arguable, noting that similar matters are pending before the Supreme Court. Consequently, a Rule is issued, and interim relief is granted to the Petitioner, preventing coercive action by the Respondents. The Court allows parties to apply based on the Supreme Court's decision and schedules the matter for a joint hearing with another Writ Petition.In summary, the Court considered the legality of notifications issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act, the necessity of GST Council recommendations, and the timeliness of the impugned order. The Court found merit in the Petitioner's arguments, granting interim relief and setting the matter for further proceedings.