Abhiram Marketing Services Ltd vs Assistant Commissioner on 3 July, 2025

ote: The provided text is not a final judgment but an interim order** from the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. It pertains to a large batch of writ petitions challenging a common legal issue. The order adjourns the hearing and continues the previously granted interim relief.

1. Outcome

The High Court has not delivered a final verdict. It has passed an interim order to:
1. Adjourn the Hearing: The batch of writ petitions is scheduled for further consideration on 31.07.2025.
2. Continue Interim Relief: All interim orders granted previously (presumably staying the recovery of tax, interest, and penalty) are to remain in effect until the next hearing date.

This indicates that the court finds the legal questions raised by the petitioners to be substantial and worthy of detailed examination, thereby protecting the petitioners from coercive recovery actions in the interim.

2. Core Issue

The central legal question across this batch of petitions is:

Whether the extensions of the statutory time limits for issuing show-cause notices and adjudication orders for financial years 2017-18 onwards, granted by the Central and State Governments through various notifications (e.g., No. 9/2023, No. 56/2023) under Section 168A of the CGST/SGST Acts, are legally valid.

The petitioners contend that these extensions were made without the necessary pre-conditions of a force majeure event as required by Section 168A, rendering them unconstitutional and beyond the scope of the law (ultra vires).

3. Key Facts

• Parties: The petitioners are numerous taxpayers, including Abhiram Marketing Services Ltd., who are being assessed by the Assistant Commissioner and other GST authorities (Respondents).
• Subject Matter: The dispute concerns the validity of assessment orders, penalty, and interest demands raised by the GST department for financial years primarily including 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20.
• Timeline: The department issued these orders after the original statutory deadline prescribed under Section 73(10) of the CGST Act had passed.
• Justification for Delay: The department relied on a series of notifications issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) and corresponding Government Orders (G.O.s) by the State of Andhra Pradesh. These notifications extended the limitation period for departmental actions, citing powers under Section 168A of the CGST Act.
• Challenge: The taxpayers (petitioners) have filed writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the legality of these notifications and, consequently, the assessment orders that were passed based on the extended timelines.

4. Arguments

Petitioners' Key Arguments:
* Ultra Vires to Section 168A: The primary argument is that the notifications extending the time limits are ultra vires (beyond the powers of) Section 168A. This section permits such extensions only in force majeure situations (like war, epidemic, flood, etc.) that make it impossible to perform statutory duties. The petitioners argue that the general administrative difficulties faced by the department post-COVID do not qualify as a continuing force majeure event justifying these extensions.
* Orders Barred by Limitation: As the extensions are illegal, the original time limits under Section 73(10) apply. Therefore, any order passed after this original deadline is barred by limitation and is legally invalid (non-est).
* Violation of Article 14: The extensions are manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, and violate the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
* Other Grounds (in specific petitions):
* Challenges to the constitutionality of Section 16(2)(c) and Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, which impose conditions for availing Input Tax Credit (ITC).
* Allegations of violation of principles of natural justice during assessment.
* Incorrect invocation of Section 74 (fraud) where Section 73 (non-fraud) was applicable.

Respondents' (GST Department's) Implied Arguments:
(While not detailed in the order, the department's stance would be)
* The notifications are validly issued under the power conferred by Section 168A.
* The disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath constituted a force majeure event, necessitating the extension of time limits for the proper completion of assessments, as recommended by the GST Council.

5. Court’s Reasoning

The order is procedural and does not contain the Court's final reasoning on the merits of the case. However, the decision to continue the interim stay implies that the Court has found a prima facie case in favour of the petitioners. The Court acknowledges that the petitions raise significant questions of law concerning the interpretation of Section 168A and the legality of the government's power to extend statutory deadlines, which requires a full and detailed hearing.

6. Statutory References

• Constitution of India:
  • Article 14 (Right to Equality)
  • Article 19(1)(g) (Right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business)
  • Article 226 (Power of High Courts to issue writs)
• CGST Act, 2017 / APGST Act, 2017:
  • Section 73: Determination of tax in non-fraud cases.
  • Section 73(10): Original time limit for issuing an order (three years from the due date for filing the annual return).
  • Section 74: Determination of tax in fraud cases.
  • Section 168A: Power of Government to extend time limits in special circumstances (force majeure clause).
  • Section 16(2)(c) & 16(4): Conditions for availing Input Tax Credit.
• Key Notifications Challenged:
  • Notification No. 09/2023-Central Tax, dated 31.03.2023
  • Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax, dated 28.12.2023

7. Precedents Cited

The text of the petitions filed by the taxpayers refers to the following precedent:
* India Cements Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise [(1990) 1 SCC 12] - This was cited by petitioners in some of the writ petitions (e.g., W.P. No. 16871 of 2024), likely in the context of principles of taxation or statutory interpretation. The court's order itself does not cite any precedent.