Back
DEVASHIS BARUAH
Barkataki Print And Media Services A Proprietorship Concern – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India Represented By By The Secretary Of Government Of India, Ministry Of Finance New Delhi – Respondent
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 1
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.
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....
Cross-empowerment of State GST officers under the CGST Act requires a government notification; without it, their actions are invalid.
Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, which restricted refunds of IGST on exports where benefits of certain notifications were availed, was declared void for future cases following its omission by new legis....
Taxpayer cannot face dual proceedings by Central and State authorities on the same subject-matter under Section 6(2)(b) of the GST Act, establishing a safeguard against double taxation.
Writ jurisdiction is discretionary, and relief may be denied if delay in filing is not satisfactorily explained, especially when alternative remedies exist.
The exercise of writ jurisdiction is discretionary and may be denied based on inordinate delay, especially when alternative remedies exist.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
