Tvl. Anees Plastic Industries vs. The State Tax Officer / The Commercial Tax Officer

Held

The Court held that Notification Nos. 09/2023-Central Tax and 56/2023-Central Tax are vitiated and illegal. The reasoning provided is that these notifications diminish or curtail the limitation period available to the authorities, contrary to the object of Section 168A of the CGST Act and the Supreme Court's order under Article 142. The Court found that the notifications were based on an erroneous assumption of the available limitation and a misconception of the scope of the Supreme Court's order, rendering them arbitrary. Furthermore, the notifications were found to extinguish vested rights of action by diminishing the limitation period. The Court also noted that Notification No. 56/2023 was issued prior to the recommendations of the GST Council, failing to comply with the statutory mandate. The Court followed its earlier decision in M/s. Tata Play Limited vs. Union of India and others, which quashed similar notifications. Consequently, the impugned assessment order was quashed, and the case was remitted back to the respondents for fresh consideration. The attachment of the petitioner's bank account was ordered to be lifted. The Court also noted that it is open to the respondents to proceed in light of any final order from the Supreme Court in a similar matter.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Anees Plastic Industries, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 29.08.2024 for the assessment year 2019-20, passed by the State Tax Officer. The petitioner also challenged notifications issued under Section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, specifically Notification No. 09/2023-Central Tax dated 31.03.2023 and Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28.12.2023, and the corresponding State Government proceedings. The petitioner argued that these notifications and the consequential assessment order were ultra vires Section 168A of the CGST Act, retrospective, and violative of constitutional provisions. The petitioner had not responded to the notices preceding the impugned order.

Key Issues

1. Whether Notification Nos. 09/2023-Central Tax and 56/2023-Central Tax, issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act, are illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, whether the assessment order dated 29.08.2024 is liable to be quashed? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the impugned notifications issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act were retrospective in nature and thus ultra vires the said provision. They argued that these notifications diminished the limitation period available to the revenue, which was otherwise extended by the Supreme Court's order under Article 142 of the Constitution. The petitioner further argued that the notifications were violative of Articles 14, 246A, and 265 of the Constitution. The petitioner relied on the decision in M/s. Tata Play Limited vs. Union of India and others. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the respondents (State Tax Officer and others).