Just a moment...

⚠✕
❮ Top
☎ Help
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕

1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available

2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.

Try both these filters in Case Laws →

☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback✕

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
╳
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
✕
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :

Print Options

+ Post an Article
Post a New Article ✕
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Co Author :

In case of Co-Author, You may provide Username as per TMI records

Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Articles

Back

All Articles

Advanced Search ❮
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
Sort By:
Relevance Date
PrevPreviousNextNext

Is the power exercised to issue N/N. 10/2019 CT valid? - Severe Implications! (Сan ALL exclusive suppliers of goods (including TIP FEBB) across the country enjoy the ₹40L threshold limit?)

Madhusudan Mishra
Notification No. 10/2019 CT on GST Threshold Limit Void Due to Jurisdiction Issues Under Section 22(1) and 23. The article discusses the validity of Notification No. 10/2019 CT regarding the Goods and Services Tax (GST) threshold limit of 40 lakh for certain suppliers. It argues that benefits provided without valid jurisdiction are invalid and unenforceable in court. The third proviso to Section 22(1) allows for increasing the registration threshold with conditions, but Section 23, which deals with exemptions, lacked jurisdiction to impose conditions before the Finance Act 2023. The article asserts that limitations set by the notification are void as they exceed jurisdiction, suggesting proper notification is needed to impose legitimate limitations. (AI Summary)

If it is in my interest, nothing matters! Benefit provided (with conditions and limitations) without exercising a valid jurisdiction is invalid and cannot be claimed in a court of law as well the limitations are inoperative.

3rd Proviso to S.22(1) confers the jurisdiction to enhance (with conditions and limitations) the threshold limit for registration to ₹40 Lakh (for specific suppliers).

S.23 heads as 'Persons NOT liable for registration' and accordingly if you look into the drafting of the same you will find the exact purpose getting resolved. Before FA 23, S.23(2) didn't have jurisdiction to prescribe for 'conditions and restrictions' while granting any exemption and even with the retrospective effect of amendment along with a 'non-contrary' clause, it cannot bypass a special provision.

Limitations are not equal to Restrictions. Exclusion from a benefit is a limitation and not a restriction. S.23(2) can only restrict but not limit the 'specified persons' from the benefit of extended limit via N/N. 10/2019 CT. In that sense, the 'limitations' of this notification are void ab initio (being non-jurisdictional) and even the 'specified persons' can enjoy the extended threshold.

They should come out with proper notification by exercising the correct jurisdiction to 'limit' the benefit exserted by the legislature.

Goods and Services Tax - GST
answers
Sort by
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Recent Articles