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
| 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
AI
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.
Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules was declared ultra vires Section 16 of the IGST Act for imposing unjust restrictions on exporters' right to claim IGST refunds.
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.