M/S Lakshminarayana Reddy Palla vs The Union Of India on 3 July, 2025

ote: The document provided is not a final judgment but an interim procedural order**. It lists a large batch of similar writ petitions that have been clubbed together for hearing. The order adjourns the case to a future date and continues the previously granted interim relief. The summary below is based on the prayers and details mentioned across the various petitions listed in the order.

1. Outcome

This is an interim order, not a final judgment. The Andhra Pradesh High Court has adjourned the hearing for this batch of writ petitions to July 31, 2025. All interim orders previously granted (such as stay on recovery of tax, interest, and penalty) are to continue until the next hearing date.

2. Core Issue

The central legal question is whether the Government's extension of time limits for issuing show-cause notices and passing orders under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Acts for the financial years 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 is legally valid.

Specifically, the petitioners challenge the constitutionality and statutory validity of notifications (e.g., No. 9/2023-CT, No. 56/2023-CT) issued under Section 168-A of the CGST Act, 2017, arguing that the power to extend deadlines was exercised without the necessary pre-conditions of a force majeure event.

3. Key Facts

• A large number of taxpayers (the petitioners) were issued Show Cause Notices and/or Assessment Orders under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Acts for financial years ranging from 2017-18 to 2020-21.
• These notices and orders were issued after the expiry of the original statutory time limit prescribed in Section 73(10) of the CGST Act.
• The Revenue Department relied on notifications issued under Section 168-A of the CGST Act, which extended these time limits, citing the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
• The petitioners filed writ petitions challenging these notifications and the consequent assessment orders, primarily on the ground that the orders are barred by limitation.

4. Arguments

Petitioners' Key Arguments:
* Ultra Vires: The notifications extending the time limits are ultra vires Section 168-A of the CGST Act. This power can only be invoked during a force majeure event (war, epidemic, flood, etc.) that makes it impossible for the authorities to perform their duties.
* No Existing Force Majeure: The petitioners contend that by 2023 (when the key notifications were issued), the COVID-19 pandemic situation had normalized, and there was no force majeure event preventing the tax authorities from completing assessments within the original statutory deadlines.
* Arbitrariness: The blanket extensions are a colourable exercise of power, manifestly arbitrary, and violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
* Time-Barred Orders: Consequently, any assessment order passed after the original deadline but within the extended period is illegal, non-est in the eyes of law, and should be quashed for being barred by limitation.
* Other Issues: Some petitions also challenge the validity of Section 16(2)(c) (requiring the supplier to pay tax for the recipient to avail ITC) and Section 16(4) (time limit for claiming ITC) of the CGST Act.

Respondents' (Revenue Department's) Implied Arguments:
(Note: The respondents' detailed arguments are not in this procedural order, but their likely stance is as follows)
* The extensions were a necessary policy measure recommended by the GST Council to deal with the systemic disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, which affected both taxpayers and the tax administration.
* The power under Section 168-A was validly invoked to ensure proper completion of proceedings without causing hardship.

5. Court’s Reasoning

The provided text is a procedural order listing the case for a future hearing. It does not contain any reasoning, analysis, or decision on the merits of the arguments presented. The Court has simply postponed the matter for detailed consideration.

6. Statutory References

• Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017:
  • Section 73: Determination of tax not paid or short paid for reasons other than fraud.
  • Section 73(10): Original time limit for issuance of the order.
  • Section 74: Determination of tax in cases of fraud, willful misstatement, etc.
  • Section 168-A: Power of Government to extend time limits in special circumstances (force majeure).
  • Section 16(2)(c) & 16(4): Conditions and time limits for availing Input Tax Credit (ITC).
• Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (APGST) Act, 2017: Corresponding provisions to the CGST Act.
• 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.
• 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 (G.O.s).

7. Precedents Cited

The order itself does not cite any precedents. However, some of the petitions filed by the taxpayers have cited the following Supreme Court case:
* India Cements Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise ((1990) 1 SCC 12)