Image<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Case Details: Tata Play Ltd.<\/span> Versus<\/span> Union of India<\/span> (2025) 32 Centax 318 (Mad.)<\/span><\/span> \r\n<\/a><\/strong><\/pre>\nJudiciary and Counsel Details<\/em><\/h2>\n
\n
- Mohammed Shaffiq<\/span>, J.<\/strong><\/li>\n
- \n
\u00a0S\/Shri\u00a0Joseph Prabakar<\/span>,\u00a0Karthik Sundaram<\/span>,\u00a0V. Srikanth<\/span>,\u00a0N. Sriprakash<\/span>,\u00a0Adithya Reddy<\/span>,\u00a0N. Murali<\/span>,\u00a0Mrs. R. Hemalatha<\/span>,\u00a0B. Satish Sundar<\/span>,\u00a0S. Muthuvenkatraman<\/span>,\u00a0B. Sivaraman<\/span>,\u00a0R. Kannan<\/span>,\u00a0A.K. Rajaraman<\/span>,\u00a0Prabhu Mukunth<\/span>,\u00a0Arunkumar<\/span>,\u00a0Raghavan<\/span>,\u00a0Ramabadran<\/span>,\u00a0Ms. Lakshmi Kumaran<\/span>,\u00a0Sridharan Attorneys<\/span>,\u00a0ANR Jayaprathap<\/span>,\u00a0Mrs. Hema Muralikrishnan<\/span>,\u00a0K. Thyagarajan<\/span>,\u00a0N.V. Balaji<\/span>,\u00a0M. Manimaran<\/span>,\u00a0A. Mohamed Ismail<\/span>,\u00a0Varun Pandian<\/span>,\u00a0Ms. Radhika Chandrasekhar<\/span>,\u00a0Ms. P.R. Lavanya<\/span>,\u00a0Ms. Allwin Godwin<\/span>,\u00a0A. Chandrasekaran<\/span>,\u00a0G. Natarajan<\/span>,\u00a0K.A. Parthasarathy<\/span>,\u00a0R. Anish Kumar<\/span>,\u00a0G. Derrick Sam<\/span>,\u00a0J. Pooventhera Rajan<\/span>,\u00a0Ms. R. Harishni<\/span>,\u00a0Hari Radhakrishnan<\/span>,\u00a0Ms. Francy Victor<\/span>,\u00a0S. Manoharan Sundaram<\/span>,\u00a0V. Haribabu<\/span>,\u00a0K. Chandrasekaran<\/span>,\u00a0B. Raveendran<\/span>,\u00a0D. Prabhu Mukunth<\/span>,\u00a0M. Narasimha Bharathi<\/span>,\u00a0P. Arumugam<\/span>,\u00a0B. Syed abdul Wakeel<\/span>,\u00a0Ms. S. Jecintha<\/span>,\u00a0Ms. AAV partners<\/span>,\u00a0K.G. Raghunath<\/span>,\u00a0M.S. Kanmani Annamalai<\/span>,\u00a0K. Sankaranarayanan<\/span>,\u00a0Ms. S. Vishnupriya<\/span>,\u00a0SP. Chidambaram<\/span>,\u00a0Abdul Rahman<\/span>,\u00a0S. Muthuvenkataraman<\/span>,\u00a0Ms. G. Vardhini<\/span>,\u00a0N. Sudalaimuthu<\/span>,\u00a0S. Rajasekar<\/span>,\u00a0N. Prasad<\/span>,\u00a0N. Inbarajan<\/span>,\u00a0N. Sudalai Muthu<\/span>,\u00a0Ms. Baby Jhon Pulickaparambil<\/span>,\u00a0S. Karunakar<\/span>,\u00a0B. Satish Kumar<\/span>,\u00a0A. Satheesh Murugan<\/span>,\u00a0R. Aravindan<\/span>,\u00a0R. Mohana Sundharam<\/span>,\u00a0D. Kanagasundaram<\/span>,\u00a0M.N. Bharathi<\/span>, Advs.,\u00a0Sujit Ghosh<\/span>,\u00a0M. Aravind Subramaniam<\/span>,\u00a0Abdul Hameed<\/span>,\u00a0B. Syed Abdul<\/span>,\u00a0Vijay Narayan<\/span>, Sr. Advs. and\u00a0P. Rajkumar<\/span>,<\/strong> Ad. for the Petitioner.<\/div>\n<\/li>\n- \n
S\/Shri\u00a0V. Prashanth Kiran<\/span>,\u00a0Mrs. K. Vasanthamala<\/span>,\u00a0S.R. Sundar<\/span>,\u00a0Ms. Amirtha Dinakaran<\/span>,\u00a0V. Pashanth Kiran<\/span>, Govt. Advs.,\u00a0Rajendran Raghavan<\/span>,\u00a0K.S. Ramaswamy<\/span>,\u00a0Mrs. Revathi Manivannan<\/span>,\u00a0R.P. Pragadish<\/span>,\u00a0A.P. Srinivas<\/span>,\u00a0Rajnish Pathiyil<\/span>,\u00a0K. Mohana Murali<\/span>,\u00a0T. Ramesh Kutty<\/span>,\u00a0B. Ramana Kumar<\/span>,\u00a0S.M. Deenadayalan<\/span>,\u00a0N. Dilipkumar<\/span>,\u00a0R. Nandakumar<\/span>,\u00a0R. Gowrishankar<\/span>,\u00a0R. Nandakmar<\/span>, Sr. Standing Counsels,\u00a0C. Harsha Raj<\/span>, Special Govt. Pleader,\u00a0ARL Sundaresan<\/span>, Addl. Solicitor General,\u00a0T.N.C. Kaushik<\/span>, Addl. Govt. Pleader,\u00a0S. Gurumoorthy<\/span>,\u00a0Sai Srujan Tayi<\/span>,\u00a0K. Mohanamurali<\/span>,\u00a0K. Ashok Kumar Ram<\/span>,\u00a0H. Velavadhas<\/span>, Sr. Panel Counsels,\u00a0Ms. Pooja Jain<\/span>, JSC,\u00a0R. Subramaniyam<\/span>, ACGSC,\u00a0K. Govindarajan<\/span>, DSGI,\u00a0J. Alaguram Jothi<\/span>,\u00a0Paramasivam<\/span>,\u00a0M. Karthikeya Venkatachalapathy<\/span>, Sr. Panel CounseL,\u00a0P. Subbiah<\/span>, CGSPC,\u00a0G. Vidhya Maheswaran<\/span>,\u00a0Ms. B. Deepa<\/span>,\u00a0T. Mahendran<\/span>, CGSCs and\u00a0T.N.C. Kavshik<\/span>, Addl. <\/strong>Government Pleader for the Respondent.<\/div>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nFacts of the Case<\/em><\/h2>\n
<\/div>\nThe 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\u2019s 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\u2019s 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.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n
High Court Held<\/em>\u00a0<\/span><\/h2>\n
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\u2019s 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.<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n
List of Cases Reviewed<\/em><\/h2>\n
\n
- \n
Ajay G. Podar v. Official Liquidator of J.S. & W.M.<\/a> \u2014 (2008) 14 SCC 17 \u2014\u00a0Referred<\/i>\u00a0[Para 9.65]<\/div>\n<\/li>\n- \n
<\/div>\nB. K. Educational Services (P.) Ltd. v. Parag Gupta & Associates \u2014 [2018] 98 taxmann.com 213\/150 SCL 293 (SC) \u2014\u00a0Referred<\/i>\u00a0[Para 9.72]<\/div>\n<\/li>\n- \n
<\/div>\nB.K. Educational Services (P) Ltd. v. Parag Gupta & Associates<\/a> \u2014 (2019) 11 SCC 633 \u2014\u00a0Referred<\/i>\u00a0[Para 9.72]<\/div>\n<\/li>\n- \n
<\/div>\nBar Association v. Union of India<\/a> \u2014 (1998) 4 SCC 409 \u2014\u00a0Referred<\/i>\u00a0[Para 6.5]<\/div>\n<\/li>\n- \n
<\/div>\nBarhonia Enigcon Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Bihar \u2014 2024 SCC OnLine Pat 8366 \u2014\u00a0Referred<\/i>\u00a0[Para 9.36]<\/div>\n<\/li>\n- \n
<\/div>\nBrunda Infra (P.) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Central Tax<\/a> \u2014<\/a>\u00a02025 (95) G.S.T.L. 43\/(2025) 26 Centax 94 (Telangana)\u00a0\u2014\u00a0Referred<\/i>\u00a0[Para 7.1]<\/div>\n<\/li>\n- \n
<\/div>\nCIT v. East West Import & Export (P). Ltd \u2014 AIR 1989 SC 836 \u2014\u00a0Referred<\/i>\u00a0[Para 9.68.1]<\/div>\n<\/li>\n- \n