IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
Suraj Govindaraj, J.
M/S Sahaj Construction - Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India Through, The Secretary Ministry Of Finance (Department Of Revenue), No. 137, North Block, New Delhi And Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 200893 OF 2024 (T-RES)
Decided On : 01-10-2024
(A) Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section 168A - Notification No. 09/2023 dated 31-03-2023 - The petitioner challenged the validity of the notification extending the time limit for passing orders under Section 73, claiming it was arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The court held that the GST Council's recommendations, once accepted by the Government, are binding. The extension was justified due to delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. (Paras 1, 7, 18)
(B) Limitation - The court clarified that the extension of limitation periods is valid when based on recommendations from the GST Council, which were accepted by the Government. The petitioner's reliance on prior Supreme Court decisions regarding limitation was deemed inapplicable. (Paras 4.1, 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to quash a notification extending the time limit for passing orders under the GST Act, arguing it was arbitrary and without basis. The notification was issued following recommendations from the GST Council.
Findings of Court:
The court found no fault with the notification, affirming that the extension was valid and binding.
Issues: The main issue was whether the notification extending the time limit was arbitrary and without basis.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the GST Council's recommendations, once accepted by the Government, are binding, and the extension was justified due to the pandemic.
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
(a) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, holding declaring that the notification no. 09/2023 dated 31-03-2023. issued by the respondent authorities no 2, as dehors and violative of the provision of section 168A, arbitrary, ex-facie illegal and without jurisdiction (Annexed as Annexure A)
(b) To issue a writ of certiorari any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the show cause notice dated 29-09-2023 and summary show cause notice dated 30-09-2023 issued by the respondent authorities no. 5 vide Annexure B and B1 bearing no. DCCT/AUDIT/-2/KLB/DRC-01/2023-24/B and reference no. ZD290923055644Y respectively
(c) To issue a writ of certiorari, mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the order dated 21-12-2023 and summary of order dated 21-12-2023 issued by the respondent authorities no. 5 vide Annexure C and C1 bearing no. DCCT/AUDIT-2/KLB/DRC-07/2023-24 and reference no. ZD2912230635881 respectively
(d) To issue order(s), direction(s), writ(s), or any other relief(s) as this honourable court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.
(e) To award costs of and incidental to this application be paid be the Respondents.
2. A show cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner under Subsection (10) of Section 73 of the GST Act on 29.09.2023 under Subsection (1) of Section 73 of the KGST and CGST Acts 2017.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that orders on the same in terms of Subsection (10) of Section 73 being required to be passed by 30.09.2023, it is by virtue of a notification No.9/2023 dated 31.03.2023, that the time limit under Section 168A of the CGST Act has been extended in an arbitrary manner. If the said notification No.9/2023 is eschewed, no orders could be passed on the show cause notice issued under Subsection (1) of Section 73 by 30.09.2023 and the extension of time till 31.12.2023 for passing such orders is without any basis.
4. In this regard Dr.Podar, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that,
4.1. In terms of decision of the Hon’ble Apex court in Misc. Application No. 21/2022 in Misc. Application No.665/2021 in Suo moto writ petition No.(C)3/2020, the Hon’ble Apex court vide its order dated 10.01.2022 at para 5 of the said order has held that the period from 15.03.2021 till 28.02.2022 would stand excluded for the purpose of calculation of limitation and the balance period of limitation as available on 3.10.2021 would be available with effect from 1.03.2022.
4.2. In the present case, the limitation having expired on 30.09.2023, the extension of time granted by the Hon’ble Apex Court would not be available to the Authorities and as such, the reliance placed by the Authorities on COVID pandemic would not be applicable.
4.3. Secondly, he relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Mohit Minerals Private Limited, Civil Appeal No.1390/2022 & others more particularly para No.148 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
E Conclusion
148. Based on the above discussion, we have reached the following conclusion:
(i) The recommendations of the GST Council are not binding on the Union and States for the following reasons:
(a) The deletion of Article 279B and the inclusion of Article 279(1) by the Constitution Amendment Act 2016 indicates that the Parliament intended for the recommendations of the GST Council to only have a persuasive value, particularly when interpreted along with the objective of the GST regime to foster cooperative federalism and harmony between the constituent units;
(b) Neither does Article 279A begin with a non-obstante clause nor does Article 246A state that it is subject to the provisions of Article 279A. The Parliament and the State legislatures possess simultaneous power to legislate
AI
The GST Council's recommendations, once accepted by the Government, are binding, and extensions of time limits under the CGST Act are valid when justified by circumstances such as the COVID-19 pandem....
The exercise of powers under Section 168A of the GST laws by the Government is contingent upon recommendations from the GST Council, and acting without such recommendations is ultra vires.
The extension of time limits under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act requires a recommendation from the GST Council; absence of such recommendation renders the extension ultra vires.
Composite show-cause notices covering multiple financial years under CGST/KGST Act are illegal as assessments must pertain to individual years, respecting statutory limitations and ensuring natural j....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of the CGST Act prevail over the provisions of the Limitation Act, and there is no power to entertain an appeal beyond the pres....
The extended period of limitation under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act cannot be invoked without clear evidence of fraud or suppression of facts; mere omissions do not justify such actions.
Writ jurisdiction is discretionary, and relief may be denied if delay in filing is not satisfactorily explained, especially when alternative remedies exist.
The petitioner was denied a fair opportunity to be heard prior to the cancellation of GST registration due to procedural violations, while the appellate authority lacked the discretion to condone exc....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.