9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 299X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e majeure . Sub-section (2) of Section 168A enables the Government to issue notification with retrospective effect. The explanation defines the expression force majeure . In the instant case, it is not in dispute that COVID-19 Pandemic falls within the ambit of force majeure . The contention of the petitioners is that the letter of the Home Department to Chief Secretaries issued on 22.03.2022 shows that COVID-19 Pandemic came to an end on 23.02.2022 and therefore restrictions imposed under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 were decided to be lifted. Thus, when impugned notifications were issued, the Pandemic was no more there and therefore force majeure conditions are not satisfied. The argument on the first blush appears to be attractive, but, lost much of its shine when minutely examined in the light of language employed in Section 168A of the GST Act. Section 168A in no uncertain terms makes it clear that the time limit can be extended in respect of actions which could not be completed or complied with, due to force majeure. The purpose behind using the phrase on the recommendation of Council is to equip the Government with the expert opinion of an expert constitutional body i.e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 25, 10733, 10766, 10790, 13212, 13291, 13737, 13746, 13756, 13767, 13777, 13779, 13786, 13795, 13799, 13804, 13818, 13819, 13821, 13822, 13823, 13841, 13842, 13853, 13859, 13917, 13934, 13940, 14100, 14179, 14182, 14268, 14281, 14289, 14437, 14476, 14496, 14729, 14843, 14896, 14947, 15013, 15150, 15201, 15332, 15381, 15439, 15452, 15479, 15483, 15492, 15510, 15569, 15648, 15855, 15863, 16038, 16118, 16281, 16350, 16374, 16656, 16875, 16920, 17012, 17015, 17224, 17294, 17682, 17684, 17766, 17916, 17967, 17990, 18097, 18115, 18117, 18126, 18172, 18176, 18198, 18310, 18425, 18438, 18486, 18613, 18618, 18684, 18894, 19008, 19205, 19594, 19757, 19992, 20150, 20164, 20232, 20233, 20234, 20235, 20355, 20371, 20429, 20671, 20676, 20680, 22410, 22472, 22524, 22535, 22552, 22588, 23087, 23282, 23538, 23962, 25177, 25272, 25742, 26603, 26606, 26621, 26646, 27082, 27228, 27725, 28511, 28653, 28657, 28757, 28808, 29363, 29507, 29516, 29531, 29539, 29544, 29554, 29560, 29806, 29881, 29915, 30025, 30047, 30113, 30133, 30142, 30194, 30471, 30474, 30621, 30638, 30657, 30784, 30815, 30858, 30896, 30945, 31071, 31125, 31178, 31199, 31210, 31229, 31286, 31348, 31363, 31463, 31479, 31498, 31650, 31666, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ditions were in existence. Section 168A of the GST Act, in no uncertain terms makes it clear that limitation can be extended on availability of special circumstances . In absence of force majeure circumstance on the date of issuance of notifications, these notifications cannot be said to be passed based on enabling provision. 3. To buttress aforesaid contention, the letter written by Secretary, Home Department to Chief Secretaries of all the States, dated 22.03.2023 was highlighted to establish that there was no need to invoke provisions of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. Thus, COVID-19 period, admittedly, came to an end before impugned notifications were issued. Paragraph Nos. 6(1), (6), (7) and (8) of said letter were relied upon. 4. The next limb of argument is that COVID-19 relaxations/extensions are not available to the Government. Notification Nos. 35/2020, dated 03.04.2020 and 14 of 2021, dated 01.05.2021, were referred to show that time for completion or compliance of any action was extended upto 30.06.2021. Hence, only for compliance of Section 73 of the GST Act, the time limit was extended till 31.12.2023 or 30.04.2024/31.08.2024. For any other compliance, time limit w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r as notification No. 56/2023 is concerned, there was no prior notification of GST Council. The counter of the Department filed in these cases shows that the notification No. 56/2023 was issued on the basis of decision taken by GST Implementation Committee/Law Committee. Thus decision of Implementation/Law Committee was ratified by GST Council after six months from the date of issuance of notification No. 56/2023. The meaning of words recommendation and ratification were highlighted to show the difference between the two. The recommendation is always prior in time which forms basis for taking a decision, whereas, ratification is a subsequent exercise for a decision which has already been taken. In view of statutory mandate ingrained in Section 168A of the GST Act, subsequent ratification cannot satisfy the requirement of statute i.e., on the recommendation of the GST Council . 10. The next submission is that repeated extensions given in purported exercise of Section 168A of the GST Act are arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The impugned notifications are discriminatory to the extent they partly modify the earlier notifications dated 01.05.2021 and 28.06.2021 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... legislative power therefore, ratification aspect dealt with in certain judgments of Supreme Court while exercising executive/administrative power cannot be pressed into service. Putting it differently, it is urged that subordinate legislative and administrative actions cannot be judged on the same parameters. Since statute envisages the requirement of recommendation of council before taking decision of extension of limitation, no other method can be adopted. 14. The meaning of words approval and recommendation as used in Black s Law dictionary and considered by Gauhati High Court in M/s. Barkataki Print and Media Services, Dhrubajyoti Barkotoku (supra) was also referred. 15. The alternative submission of learned Senior Counsel is that by the time notification No. 56/2023 was issued, the original period of limitation for F.Y. 2018-2019 which was upto 31.03.2024 was over. The notification No. 56/2023 was issued after 31.03.2024 and therefore, it cannot revive or extend the limitation which already stood exhausted. 16. Paragraph 138 of judgment of this Court in Sri Sri Engineering Works and Ors. v. The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Begumpet Division, Hyderabad and Others (2022) 104 G S.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act shows that the provisions are substantive in nature. Such provisions deserve strict interpretation. Section 168A talks about extension of time limit specified , prescribed or notified in the GST Act. This power can be once exercised and the law does not permit extension by issuing subsequent notification whereby the time limit originally specified under Section 73 (10) can be extended. 21. Section 73 (2) of the GST Act envisages issuances of notice and for this, time limit is specified. This time limit is regarding initiation of proceedings, whereas Section 75 (10) prescribes expiry date by putting a deeming clause. 22. The bone of contention of the learned Senior Counsel is that Section 168A of the GST Act permits extension of limitation prescribed as per Section 73 (10). This original limitation prescribed in Section 73 (10) can be extended, but Section 168A does not give power to extend the limitation which was extended by issuing different notification. In other words, the power of extension can be exercised in relation to the limitation provided under Section 73 (10) and not relating to limitation provided under the notification issued under Section 168A of the GST Act. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pon the judgment of Privy Council, which was followed in T. Kaliamurthi v. Five Gori Thaikkal Wakf (2008) 9 SCC 306 to submit that such limitation cannot be extended with retrospective effect. The exercise of extension of limitation is an exercise of substitutive nature. The judgment of P.K. Unni v. Nirmala Industries (1990) 2 SCC 378 was relied upon to submit that such extension of limitation is impermissible. Although, the judgment of P.K. Unni (supra) was overruled by the Constitution Bench in Dadi Jagannadham v. Jammulu Ramulu (2001) 7 SCC 71, it is not overruled on the point in question (paragraph No. 15 of the judgment of P.K. Unni). 29. Lastly, learned Senior Counsel submits that GST Implementation Committee was established as in-house mechanism to take care of urgent procedural matters. It was decided that the said committee awaiting meeting of GST Council can take decision in such matters and get ratified the decisions subsequently. Clause 10.8 of minutes of 14th GST Council meeting and Clause 8.10 of 17th GST Council meeting were relied upon for this purpose. This goes to show that GST General Implementation Committee/Law Committee is different than GST Council. The ratif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g and enabling the primary legislation. Such provisions must be strictly construed. The power under Section 168A can be used for the purpose of cases not complied or completed . It cannot be used for the purpose of initiation of proceedings. A judgment of United States of America distinguishing between cause of action and action is also relied upon. Why the benefit of extension of limitation was extended only in favour of department and not for tax payers is another limb of argument. The force majeure period at best covers five months that is equal to the duration of COVID-19 pandemic period. 35. Sri M. Ramachandra Murthy, learned counsel for petitioners in W.P.No. 14729 of 2024 and other matters, submits that the Apex Court in Naresh Chandra Agrawal v. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (2024) 2 S.C.R. 194 culled out the principle on which a provision can be declared as ultra vires. The present matter falls within Clause B of the example. The impugned notification Nos. 9, 13 and 56 are ultra vires to the parent Act. Lastly, by placing reliance para 25 of the judgment in Chief Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax v. M/s. Safari Retreats Private Ltd. 2024 (10) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is no pleading regarding discrimination in the body of the writ affidavit. It is strenuously contended by Sri Karthik Ramana Puttam Reddy, learned counsel, that the period for which limitation could have been extended is only between 05.07.2022 to 31.07.2023. While issuing Notification No. 13/2022, dated 05.07.2022, it is presumed that the Revenue was aware of the hardship, which took place in interregnum period and therefore, there was no occasion to extend it any further in subsequent meeting. The hardship period can be between May 2021 and 05.07.2022 only. The minutes of the 49th Meeting of GST Council and Clause 5.7 shows that there was no force majeure ingredient available with them. 39. Dr. Avinash Poddar, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) in W.P. No. 10591 of 2024 and other matters, urged that the Notification No. 9 of 2023 is impugned in this petition. In order to exercise power under Section 168A of the GST Act, there must be a nexus between the force majeure condition and difficulty being faced by the department. The instruction dated 21.08.2020 was referred to show that in the proceedings flowing from Section 73, Video Conferencing was made mandatory. Thus, issua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s. Barkataki Print and Media Services (supra) rightly held that Notification No. 56 is assailable, because it is not issued pursuant to any recommendation of GST Council. The judgment of the Patna High Court in Barhonia Engicon Private Limited (supra) is sought to be distinguished on the ground that difference of recommendation and ratification was not considered. The Circular dated 20.07.2021 was not considered and erroneously the force majeure order of the Supreme Court was treated to be a reason justifying extension of limitation whereas even Revenue cannot raise that point in view of their own Circular. 43. The Karnataka High Court s judgment in M/s. Sahaj Construction v. Union of India 2024 (10) TMI 1166 is cited wherein the Court held that suo motu extension order of the Supreme Court is not applicable in the proceeding like present one. 44. It is further urged that impugned ratification runs contrary to the findings of GST Council s 49th meeting. The recommendation of Law Committee was to extend the limitation only for one time, but, it was further extended. The Circulars of Department i.e., G.O.Ms.No.45, dated 22.03.2020, G.O.Ms.No.102, dated 11.05.2021, G.O.Ms.No.116, dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 168A, there exists no such requirement to place the notification before the Parliament. Thus, there is always a possibility of abuse of power in issuing notification in purported exercise of power under Section 168A. Learned Senior Counsel also placed reliance on the minutes of the GST Council and pointed out that ratification had taken place without application of mind. The judgment in S.Srinivasan (supra) is cited to show that any such order which shows colorable exercise of power is bad in law. The judgment in General Officer Commanding-in-Chief v. Subhash Chandra Yadav (1988) 2 SCC 351 is referred to show that force majeure requirement is also not satisfied. For this purpose, the judgment in Energy Watchdog (supra) is also referred. The judgment of Calcutta High Court in G obindo Das v. Union of India W.P.A.No.11578 of 2021, dated 01.10.2021 was cited to show that COVID-19 relaxation by order of the Supreme Court cannot be pressed into service in the present matter. 47. The aforesaid Notification No. 13 of 2022 was issued after expiry of limitation as extended in the previous notification. For this reason also, the said notification is bad in law. 48. Sri SRR Vishwanath, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s notifications and it partially modified the previous notifications. Thus, only modification done is relating to limitation portion which stood substituted. Hence, contents of both the said notification Nos.35/2020 and 14/2021 must be read into notification No. 13/2022. If it is read conjointly in the said manner, there will be no doubt that the reason of pandemic must be read into the subsequent notifications. 53. The above notifications show that benefits were given to tax payers also. Section 54 of the GST Act contains limitation of two years. After exemption for the purpose of this Section, the limitation became four years. 54. The fourth notification i.e., notification No. 9/2023, dated 13.03.2023, was affirmed by the Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s. Graziano Trasmissioni (supra). It is submitted that this notification is outcome of recommendation of 49th meeting of GST Council. This notification is also issued in partial modification of previous notifications and therefore, force majeure reason namely COVID-19 pandemic must be read into this notification. 55. The minutes of 49th meeting and deliberations shows that a conscious decision was taken by the GST Council. B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and declined interference. The Patna High Court in M /s. Barhonia Engicon Private Limited (supra) considered the Division Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court and refused to interfere in the Notifications Nos. 9/2023, 56/2023 and 13/2022. The singular judgment in which Notification No. 56/2023 was interfered with, is a Single Bench Judgment of Guwahati High Court in M/s. Barkataki Print and Media Services (supra). In M/s. Barhonia Engicon Private Limited (supra), the Patna High Court did not agree with this Single Bench judgment of Gauhati High Court. By taking this Court to different orders passed by Supreme Court in suo motu proceeding relating to COVID-19 Pandemic, learned Standing Counsel submits that the first order was passed on 23.03.2020, granting exemption for limitation w.e.f., 15.03.2020, till further orders. Subsequently, on 06.05.2020, the limitation periods were extended in relation to Section 29(A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and under relevant provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It is urged that Section 29 (A) aforesaid provides a time limit for taking a decision, which in that respect is similar to Section 73 (10) of the GST Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llenge to Notification No. 9/2023 has failed. Heavy reliance is placed on the judgment of Patna High Court in M/s. Barhonia Engicon Private Limited (supra) to buttress the submission that the general orders of Supreme Court issued in suo motu jurisdiction relating to COVID-19 Pandemic are indeed applicable to the proceedings under the GST Act. The Patna High Court is in agreement with the Allahabad High Court. The Circular of the Department dated 20.07.2021, on which heavy reliance is placed by the petitioners, was considered by Allahabad High Court and the judgment of Allahabad High Court was considered in extenso by Patna High Court. Therefore, Circular of the Department, dated 20.07.2024 is deemed to have been considered by Patna High Court. 65. Learned Standing Counsel relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in National Institute of Technology v. Pannalal Choudhury 2015 (11) SCC 669 to submit that the ratification is permissible. The ratification could very well be retrospective in nature. For the same purpose, he relied on the judgment of Municipal Commissioner, Jamnagar v. R.M. Doshi 2023 SCC Online SC 550 . Clause 10(c) of Article 279A of the Constitution was referred to hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tanding Counsel for CBIC, urged that the jurisprudence relating to limitation shows that no one has any vested right in relation to the limitation. Before insertion of Section 168A in the GST Act, Section 172 was the only enabling provision to remove the difficulty. This provision also could be invoked only on the recommendation of the Council. Section 168A was introduced during COVID-19 Pandemic to take care of special circumstances . Thus, language of this provision and each word used must be given full meaning. It is urged that first principle of interpretation of statute is that each word must be considered in its context and if language is plain and unambiguous, it has to be implemented irrespective of consequences. The words in respect of used in Section 168A were highlighted to submit that it is not necessary to confine the extension of limitation during the currency of COVID-19 Pandemic. 69. The next contention is that the word recommendation is on a lower pedestal than the word approval . A plain reading of language of Section 168A shows that there was no condition put for prior recommendation of the GST Council. COVID-19 created a rarest condition and in that peculiar sit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he word approval can be at a later stage and once approval or ratification takes place it will date back to the date of original decision. 72. Learned Additional Solicitor General further submitted that in view of various circumstances prevailing, in the fitness of things, it was thought proper to extend the limitation and accordingly, impugned notifications have been issued. The inconvenience in holding the meeting of GST Council is evident by reading clause 2.8.1 mentioned above. All the States are the members of Council and it was not easy to bring them on one platform during Pandemic. Thus, compelling circumstance became reason to ratify the decision of Law Committee at a later point of time. But, ratification relates back to the original date. REJOINDER SUBMISSIONS:- 73. Learned Senior Counsel Sri S .Ravi, Sri Sridharan, Sri V. Bhaskar Reddy and learned counsel Sri Karthik Ramana Puttamreddy, reiterated their stand and urged that the time limit can be extended, provided, notifications extending limitation are issued during the period of extended limitation. 74. Sri Karthik Ramana Puttamreddy, learned counsel, urged that the first notification extending time limit shows that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istribute the tax obligation. However, the application of tax law is not a mere application of set rules. The determination of taxes involves a deep dive into the factual background. 81. In order to gather the extension of time limit under various notifications at a glance, it is apposite to mention the same in a table, which reads thus:- Year Last date of filing Annual Returns Notf. No. 35/2020 dated 03-04-2020 Notf. No. 14/2021 dated 01-05-2021 Notf. No. 13/2022 dated 05-07-2022 Notf. No. 9/2023 dated 31-03-2023 Notf. No. 56/2023 dated 28-12-2023 2017-18 07-02-2020 N/A N/A 30-09-2023 31-12-2023 - 2018-19 31-12-2020 N/A N/A - 31-03-2024 30-04-2024 2019-20 31-03-2021 N/A N/A - 30-06-2024 31-08-2024 82. In the instant case, notification Nos. 9/2023, 13/2022 and 56/2023 are subject matter of challenge. Section 168A of the Act reads thus:- 168A. Power of Government to extend time limit in special circumstances. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Government may, on the recommendations of the Council, by notification, extend the time limit specified in, or prescribed or notified under, this Act in respect of actions which cannot be completed of complied with due to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to force majeure are preceded with a general expression in respect of . Thus, besides intrinsic evidence existing in the Explanation to Section 168-A of the Act (as discussed above), there is equally convincing evidence available in the use of the words in respect of . The legislature clearly did not intend to provide for additional limitation only to complete actions that had been already undertaken. The words in respect of are clearly used to enlarge the scope of exercise of the conditional legislation function. Thus, anything directly linked to the performance of action for which time-limitation may have been specified, prescribed or notified under the Central Act and the State Act and which action is perceived cannot be completed or complied , the delegated/conditional legislation in the shape of Section 168-A, may arise. 127. As discussed above, scrutiny and audit of returns was directly linked to framing of adjudication orders. To the extent that scrutiny and audit work was obstructed directly for reason of spread of the pandemic COVID-19, as was judicially noted in the order passed by the Supreme Court Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re [Cognizance for Extension ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 period, which could not be completed or complied with, due to force majeure. Thus, we are unable to persuade ourselves with the line of argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that the time limit could have been extended only in relation to the period during which COVID-19 was subsisting. In the manner statute i.e., Section 168A is worded, there is no cavil of doubt that the Law makers intended to give it a broader umbrella to bring within its shadow, such actions which could not be completed or complied with, due to force majeure. The deliberations in the GST Council Meeting on which heavy reliance is placed by learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC and learned Additional Solicitor General, shows that there were continuous deliberations in this regard and GST Council was aware that due to COVID, the Revenue administration was facing difficulties and is not in a position to complete the relevant exercise within the stipulated time. 87. So far, argument of Sri V. Bhaskar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, regarding non-availability of data to show the number of cases and nature of handicap faced by Revenue administration is concerned, we are only inclined to observe that, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... serious consideration. No doubt, Section 73 (10) provides that the Proper Officer must issue order under Sub-Section 9 of Section 73 within three years from the due date of issuing annual return. The interesting conundrum is, whether, extension notification issued under Section 168A can be confined to this limitation only and cannot be issued to extend the limitation extended by notifications. 90. A microscopic reading of Sub-Section 1 of Section 168A of the GST Act shows that it enables the Government to issue notification on the recommendations of the Council and extend the time limit specified in or prescribed or notified under the Act. It is noteworthy that the Law makers have not chosen the words in/by the Act . Instead, they employed the expression under the Act . The expression under the Act is wider than the words in the Act . The Apex Court had an occasion to consider this expression in Indramani Pyarelal Gupta v. W.R. Natu AIR 1963 SC 274 and held as under: 15. A more serious argument was advanced by learned counsel based upon the submission that a power conferred by a bye-law framed under Section 11 or 12 was not one that was conferred by or under the Act or as may be p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this analysis, this argument must fail. 92. The next limb of argument is based on the words on the recommendation of the Council. As noticed, the parties have taken diametrically opposite stand on the interpretation of this provision. 93. Before dealing further, it is apposite to remind ourselves about general principles of construction in taxing statutes. In a classic passage LORD CAIRNS stated the principle thus: If the person sought to be taxed comes within the letter of the law he must be taxed, however great the hardship may appear to the judicial mind to be. On the other hand, if the Crown seeking to recover the tax, cannot bring the subject within the letter of the law, the subject is free, however apparently within the spirit of law the case might otherwise appear to be. In other words, if there be admissible in any statute, what is called an equitable, construction, certainly, such a construction is not admissible in a taxing statute where you can simply adhere to the words of the statute (see Partington v.A.G. (1869) LR 4 HL 100 ). VISCOUNT SIMSON quoted with approval a passage from ROWLATT, J., expressing the principle in the following words: In a taxing Act one has to l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gument of learned Senior Counsel Sri S. Ravi and V. Sridharan based on the judgment of Martwada University (supra) that when the statute gives power to a particular statutory body to act in a particular way, the said decision cannot be taken by any other body. This is trite that when the statute prescribes thing to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in the same manner and other methods are forbidden. This was held to be cardinal principle of interpretation way back in 1875, 1 Ch.D.426 p.431) in Taylor v. Taylor. The Privy Council and Supreme Court consistently followed said ratio in Nazir Ahmad v. King-Emperor 1936 SCC OnLine PC 41, Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad (1999) 8 SCC 266, Babu Verghese v. Bar Council of Kerala (1999) 3 SCC 422, Zuari Cement Ltd. v. ESI Corpn (2015) 7 SCC 690, Brajendra Singh Yambem v. Union of India (2016) 9 SCC 20, Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India (2019) 3 SCC 224, Muncipal Corpn.of Greater Mumbai v. Abhilash Lal (2020) 13 SCC 234, OPTO Circuits (India) Ltd. v. Axix Bank (2021) 6 SCC 707, Krishna Rai v. Banaras Hindu University (2022) 8 SCC 713 and Dharmin Bai Kashyap v. Babli Sahu (2023) 10 SCC 461. 96. As analyzed above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o Notification No. 56/2023. 98. Sri R. Sushanth Reddy, learned counsel appeared for Revenue, submits that the word may is used in Section 168A of the GST Act, whereas, in certain other sections before the words on the recommendation of the Council , the Law makers used the word shall . Thus, existence of recommendation is not a sine qua non or a precondition for issuing notification under Section 168A. 99. This is trite that as a rule of thumb, it cannot be said that the use of word may makes the provision directory and conversely, use of word shall makes it imperative or mandatory. The interpretation depends on text and context both. Deha and Dehi both are important (see Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines v. Ramjee (1977) 2 SCC 256, RBI v. Peerless General Finance Investment Co. Ltd. (1987) 1 SCC 424, and Ajay Maken v. Adesh Kumar Gupta(2013) 3 SCC 489) 100. Thus, the scheme of provision, purpose for bringing it in the statute book and serious or general inconvenience or injustice to persons likely to be effected are relevant factors for the purpose of interpretation of a provision. The Apex Court in Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of U.P. (2007) 8 SCC 338, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ving regard to the context, subject-matter and object of the statutory provisions in question. The Court may find out as to what would be the consequence which would flow from construing it in one way or the other and as to whether the statute provides for a contingency of the non-compliance with the provisions and as to whether the non-compliance is visited by small penalty or serious consequence would flow therefrom and as to whether a particular interpretation would defeat or frustrate the legislation and if the provision is mandatory, the act done in breach thereof will be invalid. (Emphasis Supplied) 102. The purpose behind using the phrase on the recommendation of Council is to equip the Government with the expert opinion of an expert constitutional body i.e., GST Council. This enables the Government to take an informed decision based on such opinion of Council. Since all the States have participation in the Council, the recommendation of Council will certainly be in consonance with doctrine of cooperative federalism. The decision of Government on such recommendation in the shape of notification will certainly has serious impact on taxpayers. Section 73 (10) prescribes period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .03.2020, if any, shall become available with effect from 15.03.2021. 2. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 15.03.2021. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 15.03.2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. 3. The period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings , outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings. (Emphasis Supplied) 106. Likewise, on 27.04.2021, the Supreme Court directed as under: We also take judicial notice of the fact that the steep rise in COVID-19 Virus cases is not limited to Delhi alone but it has engulfed the entire n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings. (Emphasis Supplied) 108. Lastly, on 10.01.2022, the Supreme Court directed as under: III. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. IV. It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the presence of comma after manufactures for sale' and 'sells' and absence of any comma after 'stocks'. It was, therefore, held that only stocking for sale could amount to offence and not mere stocking. For another example of the use of punctuation, reference may be made to M.K. Salpekar (Dr.) Sunil Kumar Shamsunder Chaudhari (AIR 1988 SC 1841) where the court construed clause 13 (3) (v) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order. This provision permits ejectment of a tenant on the ground that the tenant has secured alternative accommodation, or has left the area for a continuous period of four months and does not reasonably need the house . In holding that the requirement that the tenant 'does not reasonably need the house' has no application when he 'has secured alternative accommodation' the court referred and relied upon the punctuation comma after the words alternative accommodation . (Pages 173-174) 112. The Apex Court in Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers Assn. (2020) 9 SCC 121 held as under: 18. When a statute is carefully punctuated and there is doubt about its meaning, weight should undoubtedly be given to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our respectful view, rightly opined that issuance of impugned notifications may be an exercise in abundant caution. Relevant portion reads as under: 40. We emphasize that insofar as the three-year period; relatable to the statutory limitation, there is substantial exclusion, as provided for by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para-1 of the directions in its decision. Hence, it is paragraph-5(I) which is applicable to the instant case, and not paragraph-5(III) and there can be no ground raised that the issuance of orders should have been within three months from 28.02.2022, especially since, as per the extension of time for filing final returns, the limitation for the years of 2017-2018, 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 would have fallen only on 07.02.2023, 31.12.2023 and 31.03.2024; all of which fall after 28.02.2022. The entire period or portions of the period excluded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, fall within the three year limitation period in each of the subject years, as we have already detailed. The limitation hence stand extended to the extent of the periods exempted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, since notifications are issued by the respective Governments extending ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of order of Supreme Court dated 10.01.2022, since we find no reason and justification to interfere with those notifications. The petitioners may avail the statutory remedy of appeal. 120. The Allahabad High Court in Graziano Transmissions (supra), in this regard held as under: 138. Seen in that light the decisions cited by learned counsel for the petitioners are found to be distinguished. The writ petitions challenging the issuance of the impugned notifications must fail. Hearing of all cases where adjudication proceedings are pending may recommence and be concluded, after excluding the duration of stay of the extended limitation to frame the adjudication order. Wherever adjudication orders have been passed and recovery stayed by this Court, the petitioners shall have 45 days from today to file appropriate appeals. 139. The writ petitions are thus dismissed. No order as to costs. (Emphasis Supplied) 121. These Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of by reserving liberty to the petitioners to avail the remedy of statutory appeal. If the appeal is preferred by the petitioners within 45 days before the appellate authority, the said authority shall consider and decide the appeal on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
