HC Strikes Down GST Time Extension Notifications as Illegal

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

Centax Editorial Board

•   4 min. read

GST notice limitation period Section 73 CGST Act Notification 09/2023-Central Tax Notification 56/2023-Central Tax illegal GST time extension

Image

 

Case Details: Tata Play Ltd. Versus Union of India (2025) 32 Centax 318 (Mad.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Mohammed Shaffiq, J.
  •  S/Shri Joseph Prabakar, Karthik Sundaram, V. Srikanth, N. Sriprakash, Adithya Reddy, N. Murali, Mrs. R. Hemalatha, B. Satish Sundar, S. Muthuvenkatraman, B. Sivaraman, R. Kannan, A.K. Rajaraman, Prabhu Mukunth, Arunkumar, Raghavan, Ramabadran, Ms. Lakshmi Kumaran, Sridharan Attorneys, ANR Jayaprathap, Mrs. Hema Muralikrishnan, K. Thyagarajan, N.V. Balaji, M. Manimaran, A. Mohamed Ismail, Varun Pandian, Ms. Radhika Chandrasekhar, Ms. P.R. Lavanya, Ms. Allwin Godwin, A. Chandrasekaran, G. Natarajan, K.A. Parthasarathy, R. Anish Kumar, G. Derrick Sam, J. Pooventhera Rajan, Ms. R. Harishni, Hari Radhakrishnan, Ms. Francy Victor, S. Manoharan Sundaram, V. Haribabu, K. Chandrasekaran, B. Raveendran, D. Prabhu Mukunth, M. Narasimha Bharathi, P. Arumugam, B. Syed abdul Wakeel, Ms. S. Jecintha, Ms. AAV partners, K.G. Raghunath, M.S. Kanmani Annamalai, K. Sankaranarayanan, Ms. S. Vishnupriya, SP. Chidambaram, Abdul Rahman, S. Muthuvenkataraman, Ms. G. Vardhini, N. Sudalaimuthu, S. Rajasekar, N. Prasad, N. Inbarajan, N. Sudalai Muthu, Ms. Baby Jhon Pulickaparambil, S. Karunakar, B. Satish Kumar, A. Satheesh Murugan, R. Aravindan, R. Mohana Sundharam, D. Kanagasundaram, M.N. Bharathi, Advs., Sujit Ghosh, M. Aravind Subramaniam, Abdul Hameed, B. Syed Abdul, Vijay Narayan, Sr. Advs. and P. Rajkumar, Ad. for the Petitioner.
  • S/Shri V. Prashanth Kiran, Mrs. K. Vasanthamala, S.R. Sundar, Ms. Amirtha Dinakaran, V. Pashanth Kiran, Govt. Advs., Rajendran Raghavan, K.S. Ramaswamy, Mrs. Revathi Manivannan, R.P. Pragadish, A.P. Srinivas, Rajnish Pathiyil, K. Mohana Murali, T. Ramesh Kutty, B. Ramana Kumar, S.M. Deenadayalan, N. Dilipkumar, R. Nandakumar, R. Gowrishankar, R. Nandakmar, Sr. Standing Counsels, C. Harsha Raj, Special Govt. Pleader, ARL Sundaresan, Addl. Solicitor General, T.N.C. Kaushik, Addl. Govt. Pleader, S. Gurumoorthy, Sai Srujan Tayi, K. Mohanamurali, K. Ashok Kumar Ram, H. Velavadhas, Sr. Panel Counsels, Ms. Pooja Jain, JSC, R. Subramaniyam, ACGSC, K. Govindarajan, DSGI, J. Alaguram Jothi, Paramasivam, M. Karthikeya Venkatachalapathy, Sr. Panel CounseL, P. Subbiah, CGSPC, G. Vidhya Maheswaran, Ms. B. Deepa, T. Mahendran, CGSCs and T.N.C. Kavshik, Addl. Government Pleader for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The matter arose from the issuance of Notification No. 09/2023-Central Tax and Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax under Section 168A of the CGST Act, which extended the time limits for issuance of notices under Section 73(2) and passing of orders under Section 73(10). These extensions were made notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s order dated 10-01-2022 in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation [2022] 134 taxmann.com 307 (SC), which had already excluded the period from 15-03-2020 to 28-02-2022 for limitation purposes in view of the COVID pandemic. It was contended that the impugned notifications effectively provided a shorter limitation period than what was otherwise available under the statute, thereby extinguishing the vested right of action of the authorities under Section 73. The notifications were also challenged on the grounds of being issued based on erroneous assumptions regarding the applicable limitation framework and the scope of the Supreme Court’s order. Additionally, the issuance of Notification No. 56/2023 without prior recommendations of the GST Council was specifically questioned, and the matter was accordingly placed before the High Court. 

 

High Court Held 

The High Court held that Notification Nos. 09/2023-Central Tax and 56/2023-Central Tax were vitiated and illegal. It was observed that Section 168A of the CGST Act does not empower the executive to reduce or curtail the limitation period otherwise available under the statute. The Court found that the impugned notifications, framed on an erroneous understanding of the limitation period and misapplication of the Supreme Court’s order under Article 142, suffered from arbitrariness and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. It was further held that Notification No. 56/2023 was issued prior to recommendations from the GST Council and based instead on recommendations of the GIC, which does not have statutory authority under the CGST framework. The notifications were thus declared unsustainable as they resulted in extinguishing vested statutory rights and were issued without adherence to the mandatory legal and procedural requirements. 

List of Cases Reviewed

 

Disclaimer: The content and information published on this website are provided solely for general informational purposes and do not constitute legal, tax, or professional advice. The content is based on the laws and regulations applicable in India and may not be relevant in other jurisdictions. Readers are encouraged to consult a qualified professional for tailored advice regarding their specific situations.
Centax does not warrant the completeness, accuracy, or applicability of the content and disclaims all liability for any errors, omissions, or reliance placed on it by users. The interpretation and application of the content are solely at the discretion of the user, and Centax bears no responsibility for outcomes. Use of this website does not create any professional relationship between the user and Centax or its representatives.
All content on this website is protected by copyright and may not be reproduced, distributed, or used for commercial purposes without prior written consent. Centax does not guarantee uninterrupted access to the website and is not liable for any technical errors or downtimes.

Leave Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share

Copy