Anika Motors Pvt Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax on 3 July, 2025

Summary of High Court Order

Title: Anika Motors Pvt Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax (and other connected matters)
Date of Order: July 3, 2025
Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati

1. Outcome

This is a procedural order, not a final judgment. The High Court has adjourned the hearing of this batch of writ petitions to July 31, 2025. The Court further directed that all interim orders previously granted in these matters shall continue to be in effect until the next hearing date. No final decision on the merits of the case was made.

2. Core Issue

The central legal question across this batch of petitions is the constitutional validity 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 prescribed under Section 73(10) for issuing adjudication orders for the financial years 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20.

The key issues are:
* Whether the conditions required to invoke the special power under Section 168-A (i.e., a force majeure event like an epidemic preventing the tax authorities from performing their duties) were met when these notifications were issued in 2023.
* Whether the assessment orders passed by the tax authorities, relying on these extended timelines, are barred by limitation and therefore legally void.
* Certain petitions also challenge the constitutionality of other provisions, such as Section 16(2)(c) and Section 16(4) of the CGST Act.

3. Key Facts

• The statutory deadline for issuing orders under Section 73(10) of the CGST Act for various financial years (starting with FY 2017-18) was approaching.
• The Government, on the recommendation of the GST Council, issued several notifications (e.g., Notification No. 09/2023-Central Tax and No. 56/2023-Central Tax) and corresponding State Government Orders, invoking its powers under Section 168-A of the GST Acts.
• These notifications extended the time limit for the issuance of adjudication orders, citing the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic as the force majeure event.
• Relying on these extended deadlines, tax authorities issued Show Cause Notices and passed assessment/penalty orders against the petitioners for the concerned financial years.
• The petitioners, a group of diverse businesses, challenged the legality of these extensions and the consequential assessment orders before the High Court through a series of writ petitions, which were clubbed together for hearing.

4. Arguments

Petitioners' Arguments:
* Ultra Vires: The notifications are ultra vires (beyond the powers of) Section 168-A. The power under this section is exceptional and can only be used when a force majeure event makes it impossible for the tax authorities to perform their functions. By 2023, the effects of the pandemic had subsided, and there was no such impossibility that warranted an extension.
* Arbitrariness: The repeated extensions are manifestly arbitrary and violate Article 14 of the Constitution, as they were issued without a rational nexus to the objective of Section 168-A.
* Time-Barred Orders: Since the notifications extending the limitation period are invalid, all assessment orders passed after the original statutory deadline are barred by limitation and should be quashed.
* Other Constitutional Challenges: Some petitioners argued that Section 16(2)(c) (making Input Tax Credit conditional on the supplier paying tax) and Section 16(4) (time limit for availing ITC) are arbitrary and unconstitutional.

Respondents' (Government's) Likely Arguments (Inferred from the context):
* The notifications were issued validly under the power granted by Section 168-A on the recommendation of the GST Council.
* The administrative and logistical challenges lingering from the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a valid ground for invoking force majeure.
* The extensions were necessary to ensure that revenue is not lost due to procedural delays caused by the pandemic, thereby protecting public interest.
* Consequently, the assessment orders passed within the extended period are legally valid and within jurisdiction.

5. Court’s Reasoning

The order dated July 3, 2025, is purely procedural. The High Court did not provide any reasoning on the merits of the case. The order simply records the adjournment of the matter and continues the interim relief granted earlier, which likely includes a stay on the recovery of the disputed tax, interest, and penalty amounts.

6. Statutory References

• Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 & corresponding SGST Acts:
  • 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.
  • Section 74: Determination of tax in cases of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts.
  • Section 168-A: Power of the Government to extend time limits in special circumstances (force majeure clause).
  • Section 16(2)(c) & 16(4): Conditions and time limit for availing 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 writs.
  • Article 265: No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law.
• Impugned Notifications:
  • 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 dated 17.05.2023).

7. Precedents Cited

The text of the order mentions the following precedent cited in some of the petitions:
* India Cements Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise ((1990) 1 SCC 12).