HC Holds GST Limitation Extension Notifications Ultra Vires | Assessments Quashed

GST • News • Case Chronicles

Case Details: Ucube Impex vs. Deputy Commissioner of State Taxes (GST Appeals), Madurai (2025) 35 Centax 56 (Mad.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • C. Saravanan, J.
  • S/Shri Raja Karthikeyan, N. Sudalai Muthu, S. Karunakar, R. Aravindan, A. Chandrasekaran, A. Satheesh Murugan, Ms Kushi & Ms M.N. Bharathi for the Petitioner.
  • S/Shri R. Suresh Kumar, Additional Government Pleader, J.K. Jayaselan, Government Adv., Karthikeya Venkatachalapathy, R. Gowri Shankar, S. Ponsenthil Kumaran, Central Government Standing Counsels, B. Ponnu Pandi & K. Govindarajan, Deputy Solicitor General of India, for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioners challenged Central and State Government, contending that the extensions of limitation for initiating proceedings which were contrary to statutory provisions and violated natural justice. They also questioned assessment and appellate orders passed on the strength of these extended timelines, arguing that executive notifications could not validly extend statutory limitations and would otherwise create an unlawful basis for tax recovery and penalties. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the notifications issued by the Central and State Governments to extend the limitation period under Section 168A were ultra vires and without legal validity, as executive authorities could not override the statutory limitation prescribed under Section 73. The court emphasised that the assessment orders and appellate proceedings that were issued pursuant to such extended limitation periods could not be sustained. The matter was remanded to ensure adjudication in accordance with the law.

List of Cases Cited

  • Bambiah Stores v. State Tax Officer — W.P. (MD) No. 19943 of 2025, decided on 23-7-2025 by Madras High Court — Followed [Paras 4, 5, 6]
  • Tata Play Ltd. v. Union of India — (2025) 32 Centax 318 (Mad.) — Followed [Paras 3, 6]

List of Notifications Cited

Leave Comment

Your email address will not be published.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

Related Stories
Common Director Not Ground to Lift Corporate Veil | HC

GST • News • Case Chronicles

January 31, 2026

GST Appeal Allowed Despite Delay Due to Illness | HC

GST • News • Case Chronicles

January 30, 2026

HC Orders Reconsideration of Excess ITC Denial on Imports

GST • News • Case Chronicles

January 30, 2026

Bail Granted After Prolonged Custody Before Trial | SC

GST • News • Case Chronicles

January 29, 2026

Refund Cannot Be Rejected After Eligibility Accepted | HC

GST • News • Case Chronicles

January 28, 2026

GSTN Advisory On RSP Based Valuation Of Tobacco Under GST

GST • News • Statutory Scope

January 27, 2026

Writ Not Maintainable Against SCN Under GST | SC

GST • News • Case Chronicles

January 24, 2026

Writ Not Maintainable Against SCN Under Section 74 | SC

GST • News • Case Chronicles

January 23, 2026

Refund Of Statutory Pre-Deposit Becomes Vested Right | SC

GST • News • Case Chronicles

January 22, 2026

Email Service Of Hearing Notices Valid Under Sec. 169 | SC

GST • News • Case Chronicles

January 21, 2026