Retrospective GST amendments under Section 16 make 2023 show-cause notice redundant, proceedings set aside

The Gauhati HC disposed of a petition challenging GST proceedings related to input tax credit (ITC) availment violations under Section 16(4) of the CGST/AGST Act, 2017. The petitioner contested notifications extending time limits for adjudication under Section 73. The HC found that retrospective amendments introduced by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2024, effective from 01.07.2017, entitled registered persons to claim ITC for financial years 2017-18 to 2020-21 in returns filed up to 30th November 2021, subject to newly inserted conditions under Sections 16(5) and 16(6). The court held that these amendments rendered the show-cause notice dated 14.08.2023 and subsequent proceedings redundant. The impugned order dated 29.04.2024 was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the competent jurisdictional officer for appropriate orders if necessary.

---

---

ISSUES:

Whether the extension of time limits under Section 73 of the CGST/AGST Act, 2017 for issuance of orders relating to tax not paid, short paid, or input tax credit wrongly availed can be validly extended by invoking Section 168A on the ground of Covid-19 Pandemic as a "force majeure" condition.Whether the notifications extending limitation periods under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 beyond the Covid-19 pandemic period are bonafide and legally sustainable.Whether the amendments introduced by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2024 to Section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017 affect the entitlement of input tax credit for financial years 2017-18 to 2020-21 and thereby impact proceedings initiated under Section 73.The legal effect of retrospective amendments to Section 16(4), (5), and (6) of the CGST Act, 2017 on pending proceedings and orders passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The Court held that the Covid-19 Pandemic situation was validly treated as a "force majeure" condition under Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017, permitting extension of limitation periods under Section 73 for the financial year 2017-18 and others.The Court found the challenge to the notifications extending limitation periods beyond the pandemic period to be overtaken by subsequent legislative amendments and did not directly rule on their bonafides.The amendments introduced by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2024, particularly Sections 16(5) and 16(6), which came into effect retrospectively from 01.07.2017, expressly entitle registered persons to take input tax credit for invoices pertaining to financial years 2017-18 to 2020-21 filed up to 30th November 2021, thereby overriding the earlier restrictions under Section 16(4).Consequently, the proceedings initiated under Section 73 based on denial of input tax credit for these periods have been rendered redundant, and the impugned order confirming demand was set aside with the matter remanded for fresh consideration in light of the amendments.

RATIONALE:

The Court applied the statutory framework of the CGST/AGST Act, 2017, focusing on Sections 16, 44, 73, and 168A, and the relevant CGST Rules, 2017.Section 168A empowers the Government to extend time limits under "force majeure" conditions, which was invoked due to Covid-19 Pandemic disruptions, as recognized by GST Council recommendations and notifications issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs.Section 73 prescribes a three-year limitation period for issuance of orders relating to tax not paid or input tax credit wrongly availed, counted from the due date of annual returns; this limitation was extended through notifications pursuant to Section 168A due to pandemic-related difficulties.The Finance (No.2) Act, 2024 introduced retrospective amendments to Section 16, inserting subsections (5) and (6), which explicitly allow input tax credit claims for specified financial years beyond the earlier cut-off dates, thereby superseding prior restrictions and impacting ongoing or pending proceedings under Section 73.The Court recognized the legislative intent and the retrospective effect of the amendments, leading to the conclusion that earlier proceedings denying input tax credit claims for the relevant periods are no longer sustainable.No dissent or doctrinal shift was noted; the Court relied on the legislative amendments and GST Council decisions as determinative of the legal position.

---