Mumbai Fast Transport And Company vs The State Of Ap on 9 January, 2025

isclaimer:** The document provided is not a final judgment but a procedural order from the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. It lists a large batch of writ petitions challenging similar issues and adjourns the hearing. The summary is based on the prayers and details mentioned in the various petitions listed in the order.

1. Outcome

The High Court has not delivered a final judgment on the merits of the case. The matters have been adjourned to April 24, 2025. All interim orders granted in the respective petitions are to remain in effect until the next date of hearing.

2. Core Issue

The central issue across this batch of petitions is the constitutional validity and legality of notifications issued by the Central and State Governments under Section 168A of the CGST/SGST Acts, 2017.

These notifications extended the statutory time limits prescribed under Section 73(10) of the Acts for issuing assessment orders for the financial years 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20. Consequently, the petitioners challenge the legality of the show-cause notices and assessment orders issued against them based on these extended timelines, contending that they are barred by limitation.

3. Key Facts

• The petitioners are various taxpayers who have been issued show-cause notices and/or assessment orders for financial years ranging from 2017-18 to 2020-21.
• These notices and orders were issued by the GST authorities after the expiry of the original three-year limitation period specified in 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 notifications.
• These notifications were issued by invoking the special power under Section 168A, which allows the government to extend time limits on the recommendation of the GST Council in case of a force majeure event (like an epidemic).

4. Arguments

The arguments, as gleaned from the petitioners' prayers, are primarily as follows:

• Ultra Vires: The notifications extending the limitation period are ultra vires (beyond the powers of) Section 168A of the CGST Act. The petitioners contend that the conditions required to invoke the force majeure clause under Section 168A were not present at the time the extensions were granted, especially for departmental actions like completing assessments.
• Arbitrariness: The blanket extension of time limits for the tax authorities is manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
• Barred by Limitation: As the notifications are invalid, any assessment order or notice issued in reliance upon them is barred by the original, unextended period of limitation and is therefore illegal, non-est, and without jurisdiction.
• Other Grounds (in select petitions): Some petitioners have also challenged the constitutional validity of:
  • Section 16(2)(c): Which denies Input Tax Credit (ITC) to a recipient if their supplier has not paid the tax to the government, arguing it punishes the recipient for a default beyond their control.
  • Section 16(4): Which prescribes a time limit for availing ITC, arguing it is merely procedural and should not override the substantive right to credit available under Section 16(2).

5. Court’s Reasoning

The provided text is a procedural order, not a final judgment. The High Court has not provided any reasoning on the merits of the arguments raised. The adjournment was granted explicitly "due to paucity of time."

6. Statutory References

• Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) & APGST Act, 2017:
  • Section 73: Determination of tax not paid or short paid for reasons other than fraud.
  • Section 73(10): Prescribes the time limit for issuing the order (three years from the due date for furnishing of the annual return).
  • Section 74: Determination of tax in cases of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts.
  • Section 168A: Power of Government to extend time limits in special circumstances (force majeure).
  • Section 16(2)(c) & 16(4): Conditions and time limits for taking Input Tax Credit (ITC).
• 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 certain writs.
• 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).

7. Precedents Cited

The text of the petitions listed in the order refers to the following precedent:
* India Cements Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, (1990) 1 SCC 12.