M/S. Abhiram Marketing Services Limited vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Court noted that the petitioner's primary contention was the alleged invalidity of Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated December 28, 2023, due to the absence of a corresponding notification from the State Government. However, the Court found that this ground alone was not sufficient to declare the notification ultra vires and that the petitioner had not raised any other substantial grounds warranting the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the petitioner was not remediless and could pursue the statutory appellate route. Therefore, the petition was deemed devoid of merit and dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Abhiram Marketing Services Limited, challenged a GST adjudication order dated August 27, 2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Bilaspur-2. This order confirmed a tax liability of Rs. 43,75,104/-, penalty of Rs. 4,37,510/-, and interest of Rs. 34,17,616/- for the tax period April 2019 to March 2020. The petitioner argued that the show cause notice dated May 29, 2024, and the subsequent order were time-barred. The challenge was primarily based on Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated December 28, 2023, issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) under Section 168A of the CGST Act, which extended the limitation period for adjudication. The petitioner contended this notification was ultra vires Section 168A of both the CGST and Chhattisgarh GST Acts, as no corresponding notification was issued by the Chhattisgarh State Government.

Key Issues

1. Whether Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated December 28, 2023, issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act, extending the limitation for concluding adjudication of show cause notices for the tax period April 2019 to March 2020 till August 31, 2024, is ultra vires Section 168A of the CGST Act and the Chhattisgarh GST Act, particularly in the absence of a corresponding notification from the State Government? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned notification is ultra vires Section 168A of the CGST and Chhattisgarh GST Acts because no corresponding notification was issued by the State Government, making the action of Respondent No. 3 (Assistant Commissioner of State Tax) arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. They relied on the Gauhati High Court's decision in M/s. Barkataki Print & Media Services, Dhrubajyoti Barkotoky & Others v. Union of India & 4 others, which declared a similar notification ultra vires. The petitioner also argued that the invocation of Section 168A multiple times for the same financial year was illegal and without competence, and that the show cause notice and order were beyond the time specified in earlier notifications. Revenue's arguments: The respondents (Union of India, State of Chhattisgarh, Assistant Commissioner of State Tax) argued that the petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act. They further contended that the petitioner has not raised any specific grounds for declaring any notification ultra vires.