Thomas vs. The Commercial Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Thomas, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 28.08.2024 for the assessment year 2019-20, passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Bodinayakannur (1st respondent). The petitioner also challenged Notifications No.09/2023-Central Tax dated 31.03.2023 and No.56/2023-Central Tax dated 28.12.2023 issued by the Union of India (3rd respondent), and G.O.Ms, No.41 dated 05.04.2023 issued by the State (2nd respondent). The petitioner had not replied to notices preceding the assessment order. The Court noted that a similar issue was decided by the Principal Bench of the Madras High Court in M/s.Tata Play Limited vs. Union of India and others, which quashed notifications issued under Section 168A of the Act.

Held

The Court held that Notification Nos. 09/2023-Central Tax and 56/2023-Central Tax are vitiated and illegal. The reasoning was that these notifications diminish the limitation period available to authorities, contrary to the object of Section 168A of the CGST Act and the Supreme Court's order under Article 142. They were based on erroneous assumptions of law and extinguished vested rights, suffering from arbitrariness. Furthermore, Notification No.56/2023 was issued without proper recommendations from the GST Council. Consequently, the impugned assessment order passed by the 1st respondent was quashed. The case was remitted back to the respondents to pass a fresh order on merits, to be decided in light of the outcome of the case pending before the Supreme Court in HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV Vs. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax. The attachment on the petitioner's bank account was directed to be lifted forthwith.

Key Issues

1. Whether Notification Nos. 09/2023-Central Tax dated 31.03.2023 and 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28.12.2023 are vitiated and illegal, as argued by the petitioner. The petitioner contended that these notifications, by curtailing the limitation period, diminish the benefit of the Supreme Court's order under Article 142 of the Constitution, are contrary to the object of Section 168A of the CGST Act, proceed on an erroneous assumption of law, extinguish vested rights, and are issued without examining relevant materials or complying with statutory mandates. The petitioner also argued that Notification No.56/2023 was issued prior to GST Council recommendations and based on GIC recommendations, which are not substitutes for the GST Council. The respondents did not record any specific arguments against these contentions in the judgment.