M/S Saraswati Spinning And Weaving Mills vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

Held

The High Court, in the interest of judicial discipline, refrained from expressing any opinion on the vires of Section 168-A of the GST Act or the validity of the notifications assailed in the petition. The Court noted that the issues involved were pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.4240 of 2025. Consequently, the High Court directed that the present petition shall be governed by the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and the decision rendered therein shall be binding on this case. Any interim order passed in this case would continue to operate and would be governed by the final adjudication of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Court did not decide the issues of limitation or the procedural requirement of ASMT-10.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Saraswani Spinning and Weaving Mills, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice (DRC-01 dated 31.02.2024) and an order (DRC-07 dated 30.04.2024) issued by respondent No.4, alleging they were illegal and barred by limitation. The petitioner also challenged Notifications No.09/2023 and 56/2023 (issued by respondent No.3) and Notification No.S.O.20/P.A.5/2017/S.168-A/2023 (issued by respondent No.1). These notifications purportedly extended time limits for adjudication under Section 73 of the GST Act for the financial year 2018-19. The petitioner sought to stay proceedings and coercive action for FY 2018-19, arguing the show cause notice was issued without ASMT-10.

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, and Notification No.S.O.20/P.A.5/2017/S.168-A/2023 dated 06.02.2023, issued under Section 168-A of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, are legal and valid for extending the time limit for adjudication of show cause notices and passing orders under Section 73 of the GST Act for the financial year 2018-19? 2. Whether the show cause notice dated 31.01.2024 and the impugned order dated 30.04.2024, issued by respondent No.4, are barred by limitation? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the show cause notice and the impugned order were illegal and barred by limitation. They also challenged the validity of the aforementioned notifications. The petitioner contended that the show cause notice was issued without first issuing ASMT-10. Respondents' Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondents. However, it notes that the subject matter of the challenge, including the notifications and the issue of extending time limits under Section 168-A for Section 73 proceedings, was already under consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.