Green Cardamom Trading Company vs. The Commercial Tax Officer

Held

The Court held that the impugned notifications, specifically Notification Nos. 9 and 56 of 2023, were vitiated and illegal. This was based on the reasoning that they diminished or curtailed the limitation period otherwise available to the authorities in light of the Supreme Court's order under Article 142 of the Constitution, were based on an erroneous assumption of law and the scope of the Supreme Court's order, resulted in extinguishing vested rights by diminishing limitation, and were issued without proper examination of relevant materials or prior to the recommendations of the GST Council. The Court followed its own previous orders and the order in M/s. Tata Play Limited. Consequently, the impugned assessment order was quashed, and the case was remitted back to the respondents for a fresh order on merits. The attachment on the petitioner's bank account was directed to be lifted forthwith. The petitioner was directed to withdraw their pending appeal against the assessment order, and the deposited amount was to be adjusted against future liabilities.

Facts

The petitioner, Green Cardamom Trading Company, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 16.07.2024 for the assessment year 2019-2020, passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Bodinayakanur. The petitioner also challenged notifications issued under Section 168A of the Goods and Services Tax Enactments, 2017, specifically Notification No.09/2023-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 issued by the State of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner admitted to not having replied to notices preceding the assessment order. The petitioner's bank account had been attached.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned notifications issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act are vitiated and illegal? (Question of law) 2. Whether the assessment order passed by the respondent is arbitrary and illegal? (Question of mixed law and fact) The petitioner argued that the impugned notifications and the assessment order were arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner relied on a detailed order passed by the Principal Bench of the Madras High Court in M/s.Tata Play Limited vs. Union of India and others, which had quashed similar notifications issued under Section 168A of the Act. The respondents did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's contentions regarding the notifications, but the assessment order was passed by the Commercial Tax Officer.