M/S. Dhb Multipurpose Engineering Enterprise And Anr vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 Ors

Held

The Court held that Notification No. 56/2023-CT issued by the Central Government was ultra vires the provisions of Section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court found that the notification, by extending time limits retrospectively, exceeded the powers granted under the said section. Additionally, the Court noted that the State Government of Assam had not issued any corresponding notification in conformity with Section 168A of the State Act. Consequently, the Orders-in-Original passed by both Central and State Tax authorities, which relied on the aforementioned invalid notification and the absence of a valid state notification, were set aside and quashed. The Court clarified that this decision would not prejudice the governments from taking steps in accordance with the law. The ratio decidendi is that retrospective application of time extension notifications under Section 168A without proper legislative backing and without corresponding state notifications renders such actions invalid and the consequent orders liable to be quashed.

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 passed by State Tax and Central GST authorities. These orders were issued under Section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and its state counterpart. The core of the challenge revolved around the validity of notifications issued under this section, which allowed for the extension of time limits for various actions, including the issuance of orders. The petitioners contended that these notifications were retrospective and lacked proper legislative backing, thereby prejudicing their rights. The tax periods and specific amounts in dispute are not detailed in the provided text, but the procedural history involves the issuance of Orders-in-Original by Assistant Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners of State Tax and Superintendents of CGST.

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 Orders-in-Original passed based on this notification are invalid. 2. Whether the State Government of Assam issued a corresponding notification in conformity with Section 168A of the State Act, and if not, whether the Orders-in-Original passed by State Tax authorities are liable to be set aside. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that Notification No. 56/2023-CT was retrospective in nature and lacked the necessary legislative competence to be applied retrospectively. They contended that Section 168A of the Central Act, which allows for extension of time limits in certain circumstances, was not properly invoked for the issuance of this notification. Furthermore, they argued that the State Government had failed to issue a parallel notification, rendering the actions of the State Tax authorities illegal. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record the arguments made by the revenue or state respondents. However, their participation implies a defense of the validity of the notifications and the consequent orders issued.