M/S A L Enterprise vs. The Union Of INDIA

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 sought to give retrospective effect to certain provisions, which was not permissible under the said section. Furthermore, the Court noted that there was no corresponding notification issued by the State Government in conformity with Section 168A of the State Act. Consequently, all the impugned Orders-in-Original, which were passed based on these invalid notifications and retrospective actions, were set aside and quashed. The Court clarified that this decision would not prejudice the Central and State Governments from taking steps in accordance with law. The ratio decidendi is that retrospective notifications issued under Section 168A of the GST Acts, without proper legislative backing or corresponding state notifications, are invalid and cannot form the basis for adverse orders against taxpayers.

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 and Central Tax authorities. These orders were passed under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime. The core of the challenge revolved around the validity of notifications issued by the revenue authorities, which the petitioners contended were retrospective and thus ultra vires the relevant provisions of the GST Acts. The specific tax periods and amounts in dispute are not detailed in the provided excerpt, but the procedural history indicates that these were writ petitions challenging the legality of the orders themselves.

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, due to its retrospective application? 2. Whether the State Government 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 the impugned Notification No. 56/2023-CT was retrospective in nature and therefore beyond the legislative competence conferred by Section 168A of the Central Act. They contended that such retrospective application of the notification was illegal and invalid. They also argued that the State Government had not issued a conforming notification under the State Act, rendering any retrospective action taken by State authorities equally invalid. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record the arguments made by the revenue or State respondents. However, the context implies they were defending the validity of the notifications and the consequent orders passed against the petitioners.