Case Details: City Enterprises vs. Deputy State Tax Officer-1 (2026) 41 Centax 405 (Mad.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- C. Saravanan, J.
- Shri K. Sankaranarayanan, for the Petitioner.
- Ms Palani Selvi, Govt. Adv., for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner challenged an ex parte adjudication order passed under section 73 of the CGST Act confirming a demand relating to the under-declaration of output tax and excess availment of input tax credit (ITC). The adjudicating authority had passed the order after recording the absence of any reply to the SCN issued in Form GST DRC-01. The petitioner contended that the adjudication order was barred by limitation and submitted that notifications issued under section 168A of the CGST Act extended only the timeline for recovery of tax and not the timeline for issuance of the adjudication order under section 73. The matter was placed before the High Court
High Court Held
The High Court held that Notification No. 09/2023-Central Tax dated 31-03-2023 and Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28-12-2023 expressly extended the statutory time limit under section 73(10) for issuance of adjudication order under section 73(9). It held that since the adjudication order had been passed within the extended statutory period, the plea of limitation could not be accepted. The High Court further held that the contention restricting the extension only to recovery proceedings could not be countenanced in view of the clear language of the notifications. However, considering that the adjudication order was passed ex parte, the matter was remitted for fresh consideration on merits, subject to the deposit of 50 per cent of the disputed tax and the filing of a reply to the SCN with supporting documents.
List of Cases Cited
- Tata Play Ltd. v. UOI — Followed [Para 7]
List of Notifications Cited
- Notification No.9/2023-C.T., dated 31.03.2023
- Notification No.56/2023-C.T., dated 28.12.2023
