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.

ORDER :

(N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.)

Heard Mr. R. S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Ete, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. M. Kato, learned Dy. SGI for the respondents No.1 to 5.

2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present proceeding has questioned the legality and validity of the Notification No.56/2023-Central Tax, dated 28.12.2023 and has also assailed the Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice, dated 30.05.2024 issued under C.No.IV(09)12/ADJ/GST/LC/ACI/2024-25/316-318, by the respondent No. 5 and also, the Order-in-Original No. 91/CGST/ADJ/AC/2024-25, dated29.08.2024, passed by the respondent No. 5.

3. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is a business man has been served with a Show-Cause Notice dated 30.05.2024, by the respondent No. 5, under the provisions of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017/Arunachal Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017. Mr. Mishra further submits that Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017, vests power with the Government to extend time limit prescribed under CGST Act, 2017, in respect of the actions which cannot be completed or complied due to force majeure and in respect of financial year 2019-2020, the due date of issuance of order under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 was 31.03.2024 However, the respondent No. 2, vide notification No. 09/2023 dated 31.03.2023, extended the time limit prescribed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 till 31.03.2024, without there being any force majeure as required under Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017, which was further extended up to 31.08.2024, vide Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax, dated 28.12.2023, without there being any recommendation of the GST Council. And on the strength of such extension, the respondent No. 5 passed the impugned order dated 29.08.2024.

4. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Notification No.56/2023-Central Tax, dated 28.12.2023 was assailed by similarly situated by the petitioner before the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the proceedings of WP(C) No.3585/2024, and the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide Judgment and Order dated 19.09.2024, was pleased to hold the said Notification to be ultra vires the Central Act, and accordingly, not to be legally sustainable in law. Accordingly, the said notification was set aside and quashed. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the interference made by the Coordinate Bench of this Court with the notification No.56/2023-Central Tax, dated 29.08.2024, the extension of time limit prescribed under Section 73 of the GST Act for the purpose of issuance of the orders there under would not be maintainable, and accordingly, the order in original dated 29.08.2024, issued against the petitioner herein would mandate an interference by this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that in view of the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C) No.3585/2024, this Court would be pleased to pass appropriate directions in the matter.

6. I have heard the Learned Council for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

7. The petitioner is a registered Assesee under the provisions of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and the Arunachal Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and bearing GST Registration No.12ANEPT8355Q2Z8. The Section 168A was inserted in the CGST Act, 2017 vide Section 7 of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The said provision deals with the power of the Government to extend time limits in special circumstances and prov