SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Gau) 1235

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Devashis Baruah, J.
M/S. Barkataki Print And Media Services A Proprietorship Concern – Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India Represented By By The Secretary Of Government Of India, Ministry Of Finance New Delhi And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C)/3585/2024, WP(C)/3607/2024, WP(C)/3610/2024, WP(C)/3661/2024, WP(C)/3665/2024, WP(C)/3865/2024, WP(C)/3877/2024, WP(C)/4118/2024, WP(C)/4226/2024, WP(C)/4257/2024, WP(C)/4456/2024, WP(C)/4490/2024, WP(C)/4495/2024, WP(C)/4577/2024, WP(C)/4590/2024, WP(C)/4591/2024, WP(C)/4592/2024, WP(C)/4593/2024, WP(C)/4594/2024, WP(C)/4595/2024, WP(C)/4596/2024, WP(C)/4597/2024, WP(C)/4598/2024, WP(C)/4681/2024, WP(C)/4756/2024
Decided On : 19-09-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. A K Gupta, Ms M Nirola,Mr. R S Mishra
For the Respondent: Dy. S.G.I., SC, Finance And Taxation, SC, Gst

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.

Headnote:(A) Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - Section 73(9) and Section 168A - Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Challenge to Notifications extending time limits without GST Council recommendations - Petitioners claim Notifications are ultra vires as conditions were not satisfied. (Paras 2-6)

(B) Constitutional Provisions - Articles 246A and 279A - These articles empower legislation regarding Goods and Services Tax and highlight the significance of GST Council recommendations for governmental power exercise. (Paras 6, 40)

(C) Principle of Cooperative Federalism - The roles of the GST Council and the concept of force majeure are central to the judgment, emphasizing harmonious relations between State and Central legislation. (Paras 10-12, 46)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged Orders-in-Original under the Central Act and State Act claiming improper exercise of authority due to absence of prerequisite conditions under Section 168A, specifically the lack of GST Council recommendations for extended time notifications issued amid the COVID-19 pandemic (Paras 2-6).

Findings of Court:
Court ruled that the Notifications were issued without proper legal foundation and recommended conditions, rendering them ultra vires; thus Orders-in-Original were without authority (Paras 49-50).

Issues: Whether the Central and State Governments acted within their legal powers in issuing Notifications extending time limits for actions under GST laws without GST Council recommendations (Paras 40-42).

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that proper exercise of power under Section 168A requires GST Council recommendations; absence thereof leads to unjustified actions by government bodies (Paras 40-48).

Result: All challenged writ petitions allowed, Notifications and Orders-in-Original set aside (Paras 52-54).

Table of Content
1. challenge to notifications under gst (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. clarification on appealable orders-in-original (Para 5 , 6)
3. constitutional provisions governing gst (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. cooperative federalism and gst council's role (Para 12 , 37)
5. notifications impacting filing of returns (Para 20 , 22 , 23 , 24)
6. argument on gst council's recommendations (Para 26 , 27)
7. illegality of orders due to unconstitutionality of the notifications. (Para 38 , 52)
8. legal consequence of non-compliance with gst recommendations (Para 39 , 40 , 48)
9. decision and orders on writ petitions (Para 49 , 50 , 51)

JUDGMENT :

Devashis Baruah, J.

Heard, the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the Petitioners in the instant batch of writ petitions. I have also heard Mr. S. C. Keyal, and Dr. B. N. Gogoi, the learned Standing counsels appearing on behalf of the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) and Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Finance and Taxation Department of the Government of Assam (SGST)

PREFACE :

2. In the instant batch of writ petitions, the Petitioners herein have challenged their respective Order-in-Original passed under Section 73 (9) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the Central Act’) as well as Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the State Act’) on the ground that the Notification No.9/2023-CT dated 31.03.2023 and the Notification No.56/2023-CT dated 28.12.2023 by which the period for passing of the order under Section 73 (10) of the Central Act was extended in exercise of the powers under Section 168A of the Central Act was ultra vires the Central Act. In addition to that, the Petitioners have assailed the imposition under the State Act on the ground that there is no Notification issued under Section 168A of the State Act extending the period for passing order under Section 73 (10) of the State Act.

3. The Notification No.09/2023-CT and Notification No.56/2023-CT are challenged on the grounds that the condition precedent for issuance of the Notifications in exercise of powers under Section 168A of the Central Act were not fulfilled. To elaborate, the Notification No.9/2023-CT is challenged on the ground that in absence of force majeure, the Government could not have exercised the power under Section 168A of the Central Act. In respect to the Notification No.56/2023-CT, the challenge is on the ground that the twin conditions for issuance of the Notification i.e. existence of a recommendation of the Goods and Service Tax Council (for short the ‘GST Council’) and due to force majeure were absent.

4. Before further proceeding, it is pertinent herein to mention that during the pendency of these writ petitions, the State of Assam issued a Notification on 06.09.2024 in exercise of the powers under Section 168A of the State Act. Pertinent herein to mention that the said Notification dated 06.09.2024 is a replica to the Notification No.9/2023-CT. Though there is no specific challenge to the said Notification dated 06.09.2024, the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submitted that as during the pendency of the writ petitions, the Notification dated 06.09.2024 was issued, the challenge made to the Notification No.9/2023-CT should also be extended to the Notification dated 06.09.2024 on the ground of there being no existence of force majeure.

5. The Orders-in-Original which are subject matter of challenge in the present batch of writ petitions are appealable under Section 107 of the Central Act. However, it is noticed that the Notification issued under Section 168A of both the Central Act and the State Act cannot be challenged under the Central Act and the State Act. It is also pertinent to observe that it is only in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, the said Notifications can be challenged. It is also pertinent to note that if the impugned Notifications are held to be ultra vires, the provisions of the Central Act

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top