M/S INDIA Steel Continental PVT LTD vs. The State Of Hp And Others

Held

The High Court, while acknowledging the issues raised by the petitioner concerning the validity of Notification Nos. 09/2023 and 56/2023 and the consequent DRC-01 and DRC-07, refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. This decision was based on the principle of judicial discipline, as the subject matter, specifically the legality and validity of the notifications, was already under consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (C) No. 4240 of 2025. The Court held that the present petition would be governed by the judgment of the Supreme Court, and its decision would be binding on this case. Any interim order passed in the writ petition would continue to operate and be subject to the final adjudication by the Supreme Court. No specific finding was given on the limitation aspect of the DRC-01 and DRC-07, as the core issue of the notifications' validity was pending before the apex court.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s India Steel Continental (P) Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging a Notice in DRC-01 dated May 29, 2024, and an order in DRC-07 dated August 22, 2024, issued by respondent No. 4, which were allegedly barred by limitation. The petitioner also challenged Notification No. 09/2023-Central Tax dated March 31, 2023, and Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated December 28, 2023, issued by respondent No. 3. These notifications purportedly extended time limits for adjudication under Section 73 of the GST Act for the financial year 2019-20. The petitioner sought to stay coercive action during the pendency of the petition. The High Court noted that the legality of these notifications was already under consideration before the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 4240 of 2025.

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, issued under Section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, are legally valid and proper in extending the time limit for adjudication of show cause notices and passing orders under Section 73 of the GST Act and SGST Act for the financial year 2019-2020? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the Notice in DRC-01 and order in DRC-07 were illegal and barred by limitation. They also challenged the validity of the aforementioned notifications. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue or state respondents regarding the validity of the notifications or the limitation period. However, the existence of the DRC-01 and DRC-07 implies the revenue's position that these actions were permissible.