Hanumanthu Ramu vs The Union Of India on 9 January, 2025

isclaimer:** The provided text is not a final judgment but a procedural order from the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, listing a batch of writ petitions for a future hearing and extending interim reliefs. The summary is based on the prayers and details mentioned in the various petitions listed within this order.

Summary of High Court Order

Case Title: Hanumanthu Ramu vs The Union Of India (Lead petition in a batch of matters)
Date of Order: 9 January 2025
Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Bench: The Hon’ble Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and The Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao

1. Outcome

This is an interim order, not a final judgment. The Court has adjourned the hearing of the batch of writ petitions to 24 April 2025. Any interim orders (such as stay on recovery proceedings) granted previously in these matters shall continue to remain in effect until the next hearing date.

2. Core Issue

The central legal question across this batch of petitions is the constitutional validity and legality of notifications issued by the Central and State Governments under Section 168-A of the CGST/SGST Acts, 2017. These notifications extended the statutory time limits for the tax authorities to issue show-cause notices and pass orders for Financial Years 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20.

A secondary issue raised in some petitions is the constitutional validity of provisions related to Input Tax Credit (ITC), specifically Sections 16(2)(c) and 16(4) of the CGST Act.

3. Key Facts

• A large number of taxpayers (petitioners) have filed writ petitions challenging assessment orders, penalty orders, or show-cause notices issued by the GST authorities for various financial years (FY 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, etc.).
• These notices and orders were issued after the original statutory deadlines prescribed under Section 73(10) of the CGST Act.
• The tax authorities justified the delay by relying on Notification No. 09/2023-Central Tax, Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax, and corresponding State Government notifications, which extended the limitation period by invoking powers under Section 168-A of the CGST Act, citing the COVID-19 pandemic as a force majeure event.
• The petitioners have challenged the legality of these extension notifications and, consequently, the validity of all actions taken by the tax department based on these extended timelines.

4. Arguments

(Inferred from the prayers of the various petitioners, as the full arguments are not detailed in this order)

Petitioners’ Arguments:
* Ultra Vires: The extension notifications are ultra vires (beyond the powers of) Section 168-A. This section can only be invoked for genuine force majeure events, and the government's power to extend timelines cannot be exercised indefinitely or without a direct and continuing nexus to the disruptive event.
* Arbitrariness: The blanket extensions were manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as the circumstances caused by the COVID-19 pandemic did not warrant such prolonged extensions for the tax authorities to complete their work.
* Time-Barred Actions: Since the notifications are illegal, the assessment orders and notices issued after the original deadline are barred by limitation and should be quashed.
* ITC Provisions: Some petitioners have challenged the constitutionality of Section 16(2)(c) (making ITC dependent on the supplier paying tax) and Section 16(4) (imposing a time limit to claim ITC) as being arbitrary and violative of their fundamental rights.

Respondents’ Arguments:
* The provided text does not contain the arguments of the Union of India or the State Tax Department.

5. Court’s Reasoning

The Court has not provided any reasoning on the merits of the case. The order explicitly states that the adjournment is "Due to paucity of time." The decision to continue the interim orders indicates the Court's intention to maintain the status quo until the legal issues are heard and decided.

6. Statutory References

• Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017:
  • Section 16(2)(c): Condition for availing ITC that tax has been paid by the supplier.
  • Section 16(4): Time limit for availing ITC.
  • Section 73: Determination of tax not paid or short paid for reasons other than fraud.
  • Section 73(10): Time limit for issuance of order under Section 73.
  • Section 74: Determination of tax for reasons of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts.
  • Section 168-A: Power of Government to extend time limits in special circumstances (force majeure).
• Notifications Challenged:
  • Notification No. 09/2023-Central Tax, dated 31.03.2023.
  • Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax, dated 28.12.2023.
  • Corresponding State Government Orders (e.g., G.O. Ms. No. 221 of Andhra Pradesh).
• Constitution of India:
  • Article 14 (Right to Equality).
  • Article 19(1)(g) (Freedom to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business).
  • Article 226 (Power of High Courts to issue certain writs).

7. Precedents Cited

The Court's order itself does not cite any precedents. However, the prayer in one of the writ petitions (W.P. No. 13524 of 2024 & W.P. No. 16871 of 2024) refers to the decision of the Supreme Court in:
* India Cements Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, (1990) 1 SCC 12.