M/S. Uniglobal Papers PVT. LTD. And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
M/s Uniglobal Papers Pvt. Ltd. and another (the petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging an order dated August 29, 2024, passed under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. This order pertained to the tax period of 2019 to 2020. The petitioner contended that the order was passed beyond the statutory period of three years prescribed by Section 73(9) of the Act, which ordinarily would have expired on December 31, 2023. The revenue authorities invoked an extended period by relying on notifications dated March 31, 2023, and December 28, 2023, issued under Section 168A of the Act, citing force majeure events.
Held
The Court acknowledged that the writ petition raised a jurisdictional issue and that the impugned order was passed beyond the period prescribed under Section 73(9) of the said Act. While the period was extended by notifications under Section 168A, the crucial question for consideration was whether a force majeure event actually prevailed to authorize the invocation of this extended period. The Court found that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case. Consequently, the Court ordered that the impugned order dated August 29, 2024, be stayed until the disposal of the writ petition or until further order, whichever is earlier. The Court directed the respondents to file an affidavit-in-opposition within six weeks after the annual vacation, with a reply to be filed within four weeks thereafter.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order passed under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, for the tax period 2019-2020, was time-barred, considering the prescribed period of three years under Section 73(9) and the purported invocation of an extended period under Section 168A. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the order was passed significantly beyond the statutory three-year period, which expired on December 31, 2023. They contended that the revenue authorities wrongly invoked the extended period under Section 168A by relying on notifications dated March 31, 2023, and December 28, 2023, as there were no prevailing force majeure events that justified such an extension. Revenue's contention: The respondent revenue authorities submitted that the notifications extending the period under Section 168A were rightly issued and correctly applied.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 73(9), Section 168A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2025
sayandeep Sl. No. 11 Ct. No. 05
WPA 27889 of 2024
M/s Uniglobal Papers Pvt. Ltd. & anr. Vs. The Union of India & ors.
Mr. Nilotpal Chowdhury Mr. Prabir Bera
…..for the petitioner
Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty Ms. Sumita Shaw Mr. Saptak Sanyal ….for the State Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee Mr. Ankan Das Ms. Shradhya Ghosh
…..for the UOI
The affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept on record.
Challenging the order dated 29th August, 2024, passed under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) in respect of the tax period of 2019 to 2020, the instant writ petition has been filed. It is the petitioner’s case that ordinarily in terms of the provisions contained in Section 73(9) of the said Act, the order ought to have been passed within a period of three years. In the instant case, however, the same has been passed much beyond the prescribed period that is 31st December, 2023. 3. According to Mr. Chowdhury, learned advocate representing the petitioner, though the respondents
2 have purported to invoke the extended period by relying on the notifications dated 31st March, 2023 and 28th December, 2023 issued under Section 168A of the said Act, there was no force majeure event prevailing which could have authorized the invocation of Section 168A.
Mr. Sanyal, learned advocate appears on behalf of the respondents. He would submit that the above notification has rightly been issued.
Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, since the juri ictional issue has been raised, I am of the view the writ petition should be heard. Further taking into consideration the fact that the order impugned was passed beyond the prescribed period provided for under Section 73(9) of the said Act, and though such period stood extended by the notifications dated 31st March, 2023 and 28th December, 2023 under the provisions of Section 168A of the said Act, the question that remains for consideration is whether there was any force majeure event prevailing which could authorize invocation of such extended period.
Having regard thereto and since the petitioner has made out a prima facie case, I am of the view that the order impugned should remain stayed till disposal of the writ petition or until further order whichever is earlier.
3
Let affidavit-in-opposition to the instant writ petition be filed within a period of six weeks after the annual vacation. Reply if any thereto, be filed within four weeks thereafter.
Liberty to mention.
(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.