M/S Krishna Gas Service vs. The Union Of INDIA And 3 Ors.

Held

The Court held that Notification No. 56/2023-CT is ultra vires the provisions of Section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as it was not issued on the recommendation of the GST Council. Consequently, any extension of time granted by this notification for the issuance of orders is invalid. Furthermore, the Court found that the State of Assam did not issue any notification in conformity with Section 168A of the State Act, which would validate retrospective actions. Therefore, the impugned Orders-in-Original, which were passed based on these invalid extensions and notifications, were set aside and quashed. The Court clarified that this decision would not prejudice the governments from taking steps in accordance with law.

Facts

The petitioners, including M/s. Barkataki Print and Media Services and others, filed writ petitions before the Gauhati High Court challenging various Orders-in-Original issued by State Tax and Central GST authorities. These orders were passed in relation to GST matters. The core of the challenge revolved around the validity of certain notifications and their retrospective application. The petitioners contended that the impugned orders were passed without proper legal basis, particularly concerning the extension of time limits for actions by tax authorities. The judgment addresses multiple writ petitions, indicating a common legal issue across them.

Key Issues

1. Whether Notification No. 56/2023-CT, issued by the Central Government, is ultra vires the provisions of Section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and consequently, whether the time extensions granted thereunder are invalid? 2. Whether the State of Assam issued a corresponding notification in conformity with Section 168A of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, to validate retrospective actions? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that Notification No. 56/2023-CT was issued without the necessary recommendation of the GST Council, rendering it invalid. They contended that the retrospective extension of time limits for issuing orders, based on this notification, was illegal and prejudiced their rights. They also argued that the State Government failed to issue a conforming notification, making any retrospective action by State authorities void. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record the arguments made by the revenue or state respondents. However, it implies that the revenue relied on the said notification for passing the impugned orders.