Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company Limited vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company Limited, a health insurance company, filed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original dated April 29, 2024, passed by Respondent No. 3. This order held the petitioner liable for GST amounting to ₹17,09,10,077/-. The petitioner also challenged the Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated December 27, 2023, which preceded the impugned order, and Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated December 28, 2023, along with its state counterpart, Notification No. 09/2023-State Tax dated June 22, 2023. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction, lacked reasons, and was barred by limitation, as was the SCN. The petitioner argued that while the limitation period for assessment under the CGST Act was extended, no corresponding extension was made for the DGST Act. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that the impugned notification extending time limits under Section 73 of the CGST Act was issued beyond the scope of Section 168A, as it was issued after the COVID-19 disruption period and without a subsisting force majeure event.

Held

The Court held that the impugned Order-in-Original dated April 29, 2024, was liable to be set aside for not being supported by any reasons. The respondent's counsel fairly conceded this point. The Court found it apposite to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to examine the reply filed by the petitioner to the impugned SCN and take an informed decision within eight weeks. Furthermore, the concerned officer was directed to examine the question of whether the order under Section 73 of the DGST Act was barred by limitation. The Court clarified that all rights and contentions of the parties were reserved, including the petitioner's contention regarding the validity of the impugned notification. The Court did not decide on the validity of the notification or the limitation period for the DGST Act, leaving these for the Adjudicating Authority to examine.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned Order-in-Original dated April 29, 2024, passed by Respondent No. 3, is liable to be quashed on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, absence of reasons, and being barred by limitation, as contended by the petitioner? 2. Whether the Show Cause Notice dated December 27, 2023, issued by Respondent No. 3, is barred by limitation? 3. Whether Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated December 28, 2023, and Notification No. 09/2023-State Tax dated June 22, 2023, are ultra vires Section 168A and Section 73 of the CGST Act/DGST Act, 2017, as argued by the petitioner? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction and reasons, and was barred by limitation. They contended that the SCN was also issued beyond the limitation period. Crucially, the petitioner argued that the extension of limitation under Section 73 of the CGST Act via Notification No. 56/2023 was invalid as it was issued after the COVID-19 disruption period and without a force majeure event, thus exceeding the powers granted under Section 168A of the CGST Act. The petitioner also claimed the impugned order was unreasoned, merely stating the reply was "partially not satisfied". Revenue's Contentions: The respondents' counsel conceded that the impugned order was not supported by any reasons and was liable to be set aside on that ground alone. They suggested remanding the matter for fresh decision.