Tvl Sri Madurai Meenakshi Agencies vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer Ii (St),/ The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer

Held

The Court held that Notification Nos. 9 and 56 of 2023, issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act, are vitiated and illegal. The reasoning provided is that these notifications diminish or curtail the limitation period otherwise available to the authorities, contrary to the object of Section 168A and the Supreme Court's order under Article 142. The notifications were based on an erroneous assumption of the available limitation and a misconception of the Supreme Court's order, rendering them arbitrary. Furthermore, Notification No. 56/2023 was issued prior to the GST Council's recommendations, making it illegal. The Court quashed the impugned assessment order and remitted the case back to the respondents for a fresh order on merits, to be passed in accordance with the outcome of a pending case before the Supreme Court. The attachment on the petitioner's bank account was directed to be lifted.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.SRI MADURAI MEENAKSHI AGENCIES, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 29.12.2023 passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer – II (ST) for the assessment year 2017-18. The petitioner contended that the impugned notifications issued under Section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and consequential proceedings were ultra vires, retrospective, and violative of constitutional provisions. The petitioner had not responded to notices preceding the assessment order. The Court noted that the writ petition was filed after the assessment order was passed. The respondents are the Deputy State Tax Officer, the State of Tamil Nadu, and the Union of India.

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, 2017, are ultra vires and violative of Article 14, 246A, and 265 of the Constitution of India, and Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017, by acting retrospectively. The petitioner argued that these notifications curtail the limitation period available to authorities, are arbitrary, and extinguish vested rights. They also contended that Notification No. 56/2023 was issued without proper recommendations from the GST Council. The respondents' arguments are not explicitly recorded in the provided text.