Pandian vs. The State Tax Officer (St)/

Held

The Court held that Notification Nos. 9 and 56 of 2023, issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act, are vitiated and illegal. This is based on the reasoning that these notifications diminish or curtail the limitation period available to the authorities, contrary to the object of Section 168A and the Supreme Court's order under Article 142 of the Constitution. The notifications were found to be based on an erroneous assumption of the limitation period and a misconception of the Supreme Court's order, leading to arbitrariness and extinguishing vested rights. Additionally, Notification No. 56/2023 was issued prior to the GST Council's recommendations, rendering it illegal. The Court followed a detailed order of the Principal Bench in M/s. Tata Play Limited vs. Union of India, which quashed similar notifications. Consequently, the impugned assessment order was quashed, and the case was remitted back to the respondents for a fresh order on merits, to be passed subject to the outcome of a pending Supreme Court case. The attachment of the petitioner's bank account and property was directed to be lifted forthwith.

Facts

The petitioner, Pandian, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated July 15, 2024, for the assessment year 2019-2020, passed by the State Tax Officer (1st respondent). The petitioner also challenged notifications issued under Section 168A of the Goods and Services Tax Enactments, 2017, by the Union of India (3rd respondent) and the State of Tamil Nadu (2nd respondent). The petitioner had not responded to notices preceding the assessment order. The Court noted that the writ petition was filed long after the assessment order was passed.

Key Issues

1. Whether Notification No. 09/2023-Central Tax dated 31.03.2023 and Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28.12.2023, issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act, are vitiated and illegal? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner challenged the impugned notifications and the assessment order as arbitrary and illegal. While not explicitly detailing arguments against the notifications, the petitioner sought to quash them. Revenue's Contention: The respondents did not explicitly record any arguments in defense of the notifications or the assessment order in the provided text. However, the Court's decision implies that the respondents would have relied on the validity of these notifications and the assessment process. The Court noted the petitioner had not replied to pre-assessment notices.