Pandian vs. The State Tax Officer (St)
Held
The Court held that Notification Nos.9/2023-Central Tax and 56/2023-Central Tax are vitiated and illegal. The reasoning was based on the precedent set in M/s.Tata Play Limited vs. Union of India and others. The Court found these notifications to be contrary to the object of Section 168A of the CGST Act as they diminished or curtailed the limitation period available due to the Supreme Court's order under Article 142 of the Constitution. The notifications were also deemed unsustainable as they proceeded on an erroneous assumption of the available limitation and a misconception of the Supreme Court's order, leading to arbitrariness and extinguishing vested rights. Furthermore, Notification No.56/2023 was issued prior to the GST Council's recommendations, failing to comply with statutory mandates. The Court quashed the impugned assessment order and remitted the case back to the respondents for a fresh order on merits. The attachment on the petitioner's bank account was directed to be lifted forthwith.
Facts
The petitioner, Pandian, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 17.04.2024 for the assessment year 2018-2019, passed by the State Tax Officer. The petitioner also challenged notifications issued under Section 168A of the Goods and Services Tax Enactments, 2017, specifically Notification No.9/2023-Central Tax dated 31.03.2023 and Notification No.56/2023-Central Tax dated 28.12.2023, as well as G.O.Ms.No.41 dated 05.04.2023. The petitioner had not responded to notices preceding the assessment order. The petitioner's bank account had been attached.
Key Issues
1. Whether Notification Nos.9/2023-Central Tax and 56/2023-Central Tax, issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act, are vitiated and illegal. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner challenged the impugned notifications and the assessment order. The petitioner relied on a recent order by the Principal Bench of the Madras High Court in M/s.Tata Play Limited vs. Union of India and others, which quashed similar notifications. The petitioner also highlighted that their bank account had been attached. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the respondents (State Tax Officer, State of Tamil Nadu, and Union of India). However, it notes that the petitioner had not replied to the notices that preceded the impugned order.
Sections Cited
Section 168A, Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 W.P.(MD)NO.34579 OF 2025 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28.11.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.34579 of 2025 AND W.M.P.(MD)Nos.27351 & 27352 of 2025 Pandian
... Petitioner Vs.
The State Tax Officer(ST)/ Commercial Tax Officer, Bodinayakanur Assessment Circle, Theni.
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Commercial Taxes & Registration (B1) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 3. The Union of India, Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance(MOF), Raj Path Marg, E Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi 110 011. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the impugned proceedings of the third respondent notification No.9/2023-Central Tax dated 31.03.2023 and that of proceedings of the second respondent in G.O.Ms.No.41 dated 05.04.2023 and that of the proceedings of the third respondent 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2 W.P.(
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.