HC Strikes Down GST Time Extension Notifications as Illegal

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

• Ajay G. Podar v. Official Liquidator of J.S. & W.M. — (2008) 14 SCC 17 — Referred [Para 9.65]
• B. K. Educational Services (P.) Ltd. v. Parag Gupta & Associates — [2018] 98 taxmann.com 213/150 SCL 293 (SC) — Referred [Para 9.72]
• B.K. Educational Services (P) Ltd. v. Parag Gupta & Associates — (2019) 11 SCC 633 — Referred [Para 9.72]
• Bar Association v. Union of India — (1998) 4 SCC 409 — Referred [Para 6.5]
• Barhonia Enigcon Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Bihar — 2024 SCC OnLine Pat 8366 — Referred [Para 9.36]
• Brunda Infra (P.) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Central Tax — 2025 (95) G.S.T.L. 43/(2025) 26 Centax 94 (Telangana) — Referred [Para 7.1]
• CIT v. East West Import & Export (P). Ltd — AIR 1989 SC 836 — Referred [Para 9.68.1]
• Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re — [2022] 134 taxmann.com 307 (SC) — Referred [Para 9.61]
• Competent Authority v. Barangore Jute Factory — (2005) 13 SCC 477 — Referred [Para 9.41]
• Consolidated Engg. Enterprises v. Asstt. CIT — [2008] 167 Taxman 223 (SC) — Referred [Para 9.65]
• Delhi Judicial Services Association Tiz Hazari Court, Delhi v. State of Gujarat — (1991) 4 SCC 406 — Referred [Para 7.1]
• Delhi Laws Act, 1912 In re — AIR 1951 SC 332 — Referred [Para 9.1]
• Faizal Traders (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner, Central Tax and Central Excise — [2024] 162 taxmann.com 493 (Kerala) — Referred [Para 9.34]
• GPR Power Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Supriyo Chaudhuri (RP of Rohit Ferro Tech Ltd.) — [2022] 134 taxmann.com 75/170 SCL 426 (SC) — Referred [Para 7.1]
• Graziano Transmissoin v. GST — 2024 SCC OnLine All 3012 — Referred [Para 7.1]
• Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India — AIR 1960 SC 554 — Referred [Para 6.1]
• Hariprasad Shivshanker Shukla v. A.D.Divelkar — 1956 SCC OnLine SC 21 — Referred [Para 9.71]
• Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India — (1985) 1 SCC 641 — Referred [Para 9.14]
• Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India — AIR 1986 SC 515 — Referred [Para 6.1]
• Kailash Nath Agarwal v. Pradeshiya Industrial & Investment Corpn. of U.P. Ltd. — [2003] 42 SCL 689 (SC) — Referred [Para 9.68.1]
• Kalpraj Dharamshi v. Kotak Investment Advisors Ltd. — [2021] 125 taxmann.com 194/166 SCL 583 (SC) — Referred [Para 9.65]
• Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan — (2005) 3 SCC 284 — Referred [Para 7.1]
• Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni v. State of Madras — AIR 1960 SC 1080 — Referred [Para 9.31]
• Ketan V. Parekh v. Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement — [2011] 16 taxmann.com 221/110 SCL 724 (SC) — Referred [Para 9.65]
• Lloyd Electric & Engg. Ltd. v. State of H.P. — (2016) 1 SCC 560 — Referred [Para 9.27]
• Marathwada University v. Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan — (1989) 3 SCC 132 — Referred [Para 9.48]
• Peddinti Venkata Murali Ranganatha Desika Iyengar v. Govt. of A.P. — (1996) 3 SCC 75 — Referred [Para 9.71]
• Prahlad Raut v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences — (2021) 14 SCC 472 — Referred [Para 9.9]
• Project Officer, IRDP v. P.D. Chacko — (2010) 6 SCC 637 — Referred [Para 9.10]
• Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project — (2008) 17 SCC 448 — Referred [Para 9.8]
• Shri Ishal Alloy Steels Ltd. v. Jayaswalas Neco Ltd. — AIR 2001 SC 1161 — Referred [Para 9.68.1]
• Solutions Pvt. Ltd., v. Supriyo Chaudhuri — 2021 17 SCC 312 — Referred [Para 7.1]
• State of U.P. v. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh — (1989) 2 SCC 505 — Referred [Para 9.54]
• State of U.P. v. Renusagar Power Co. — (1988) 4 SCC 59 — Referred [Para 9.74]
• Union of India v. Mohit Minerals (P.) Ltd. — 2022 (61) G.S.T.L. 257 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 9.41]
• Union of India v. Uttam Steel Ltd — (2015) 13 SCC 209 — Referred [Para 9.72]
• V. S. Palanivel v. P. Sriram, CS, Liquidator — [2024] 166 taxmann.com 185 (SC) — Referred [Para 7.1]
• Vineet Narain v. Union of India — (1998) 1 SCC 226 — Referred [Para 6.5]
• Vinod Gurudas Raikar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd — (1991) 4 SCC 333 — Referred [Para 9.72]
• Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India — [2023] 146 taxmann.com 36 (SC) — Referred [Para 9.49]