2025 (3) TMI 320 - HC - GST

Challenge to the Garnishee Notice the Show Cause Notice and the impugned order - challenge to N/N. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December 2023 and Notification No. 56/2023-State Tax No. MGST-1524/C. R.6/Taxation-1 dated 16th January 2024 issued under Section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - HELD THAT - The issues raised in this Writ Petition are pending adjudication in several other Writ Petitions including Writ Petition No.5146 of 2024 and Precaution Properties Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Maharashtra Ors. 2025 (3) TMI 250 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . The Hon ble Gauhati High Court has infact already struck down these Notifications. Though on this issue the Telangana High Court has held in favour of the Petitioner before it the Telangana High Court came to the conclusion that because of the order of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Re-Cognizance for extension of limitation 2022 (1) TMI 385 - SC ORDER the assessment was not time barred. This order of the Telangana High Court has been challenged before the Hon ble Supreme Court and which is pending adjudication. Once these are the facts it is opined that the Petitioner has not only made out a case for admission but also for grant of interim relief. Petition disposed off.

Summary

The Bombay High Court considered a Writ Petition challenging a Garnishee Notice, an order, and certain notifications related to tax payable under the GST Act. The core legal questions considered were the validity of the impugned order, Garnishee Notice, and Show Cause Notice, as well as the legality of the challenged notifications issued under the CGST Act and MGST Act.The Petitioner argued that the Show Cause Notice was not served, breaching natural justice principles, rendering the impugned order vulnerable. Additionally, the Petitioner contended that the impugned order for the financial year 2019-2020 was time-barred due to the challenged notifications not being issued on the recommendation of the GST Council, as mandated by Section 168A of the Acts.The State argued that Section 168A was enacted to address events like wars and pandemics, including the Covid-19 pandemic, which constituted a force majeure event. The State contended that the issuance of the notifications was justified under Section 168A, although it could not confirm if the notifications were recommended by the GST Council.The Court noted that similar issues were pending in other Writ Petitions and cited conflicting decisions from different High Courts regarding the validity of the notifications. The Court observed that the Gauhati High Court had struck down the notifications, while the Telangana High Court had ruled in favor of the Petitioner based on a Supreme Court order regarding the extension of limitation periods.Considering the arguments and the conflicting decisions, the Court found arguable questions raised in the Writ Petition and granted interim relief to the Petitioner. The Court issued a Rule and directed the Respondents not to take coercive action against the Petitioner pending further proceedings. The Court also tagged the present Writ Petition with other related cases for consolidated consideration.In conclusion, the Court granted interim relief to the Petitioner by staying the execution of the Garnishee Notice and the impugned order. The Court acknowledged the complexity of the legal issues involved and allowed parties to apply based on the outcome of related matters before the Supreme Court.This judgment highlights the importance of procedural fairness, statutory compliance, and the impact of force majeure events on tax-related matters under the GST Act. The Court's decision to grant interim relief reflects a cautious approach pending further clarity on the legal issues at hand.