Ozone Pharmaceuticals LTD vs. The UOI And Another

Held

The High Court noted that the subject matter of the challenge, specifically the legality and validity of Notification Nos. 9 and 56 of 2023, were already under consideration before the Supreme Court of India in SLP (C) No. 4240 of 2025. The Supreme Court had issued notice and was considering the prayer for interim relief. Given the pendency of these issues before the apex court and in the interest of judicial discipline, the High Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the vires of Section 168A or the challenged notifications. The Court directed that the present petition would be governed by the judgment of the Supreme Court, and its decision would be binding. The respondents were restrained from taking coercive steps against the petitioner based on the appellate authority's order until the Supreme Court's final adjudication.

Facts

The petitioner, Ozone Pharmaceuticals Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging the legality and validity of Section 7 of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, which inserted Section 168A into the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner also challenged Notifications No. 9/2023-Central Tax and 56/2023-Central Tax, which extended the time limit for passing orders under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act for the financial year 2018-19. Furthermore, the petition challenged an order dated 12.03.2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against an order dated 12.03.2024 affirming a demand. The petitioner contended that these actions were beyond legislative competency and arbitrary.

Key Issues

1. Whether Section 7 of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, inserting Section 168A into the CGST Act, 2017, is ultra vires due to being beyond legislative competency and an arbitrary misuse of authority? (Petitioner's contention). 2. Whether Notifications No. 9/2023-Central Tax and 56/2023-Central Tax, extending the time limit under Section 73(10) of the CGST Act for the year 2018-19, are bad in law as they were issued under Section 168A, which itself is allegedly beyond the scope of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020? (Petitioner's contention). 3. Whether the order dated 12.03.2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner, dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the order dated 12.03.2024 affirming a demand, is legally sustainable? (Petitioner's contention). The respondents waived service of notice and did not present arguments on the merits of the case before this Court, as the issues were pending before the Supreme Court.