Ms Kakoti Engineering Works And Anr vs. Union Of INDIA And 6 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. The reasoning was that the notification was issued without the requisite legislative authority or in a manner inconsistent with the parent Act. Furthermore, the Court found that there was no corresponding notification issued by the State Government in conformity with Section 168A of the State Act. Consequently, the impugned Orders-in-Original, which were based on these invalid notifications or lacked proper statutory backing, were set aside and quashed. The ratio decidendi is that executive notifications must strictly adhere to the enabling provisions of the parent statute, and any deviation or retrospective application without clear legislative sanction renders them void. The Court directed that all impugned Orders-in-Original listed in the Appendix be set aside and quashed. The Court also 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 under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime. The core of the challenge appears to be related to the validity of certain notifications and their retrospective application, which impacted the petitioners' tax liabilities. The specific tax periods and amounts in dispute are not detailed in the provided excerpt, but the procedural history involves the issuance of these orders by Assistant Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners of State Tax and Central GST, which are now under judicial review.

Key Issues

1. Whether Notification No. 56/2023-CT (Central) is ultra vires the provisions of Section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? 2. Whether the State Act has issued any notification in conformity with Section 168A of the State Act, and if not, whether the impugned orders are valid? The petitioners argued that Notification No. 56/2023-CT, which purportedly extended timelines for certain actions, was issued without the necessary legislative backing or in contravention of the parent Act, rendering it invalid. They contended that such retrospective application of a notification, especially one impacting procedural timelines, was beyond the powers of the executive. The petitioners also argued that the State Government had failed to issue a corresponding notification under the State GST Act, which was necessary for the provisions of Section 168A to be effectively applied, thus invalidating the orders passed by the State Tax authorities. The Revenue's arguments are not explicitly detailed in the provided excerpt, but it is implied they defended the validity of the notifications and the consequent orders.