TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Enforcement of CGST recovery amount stayed; challenge to extended tax recovery timelines amid post-COVID context.</h1> <h3>M/s. NK CONSTRUCTION AND ANR., NIRANJAN SARMA Versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS., THE CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS, THE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX COUNCIL, THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER STATE TAX, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER STATE TAX</h3> M/s. NK CONSTRUCTION AND ANR., NIRANJAN SARMA Versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS., THE CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS, THE GOODS AND SERVICE ... Issues: Challenge to notifications and order under CGST Act, 2017; Extension of time limit for recovery of tax; Contention regarding COVID-19 pandemic factor; Interim protection granted by various High Courts; Interpretation of 'force majeure' under CGST Act, 2017; Enforcement of recovery of assessed amount.Analysis:1. The writ petition challenges Notification no. 09/2023, Notification no. 56/2023-Central Tax, and an Order-in-Original dated 26.04.2024 under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017. The notifications extended the time limit for issuing recovery orders related to tax not paid or short paid. The petitioner contests the basis of these extensions and the subsequent order for recovery of Ineligible Input Tax Credit.2. The petitioner argues that the COVID-19 pandemic was no longer existent post-2022, citing a Supreme Court order limiting the period of limitation till 28.02.2022. The petitioner questions the necessity for the GST Council to consider the pandemic for extending the time limit under Section 73(10) of the CGST Act, 2017.3. The petitioner highlights that various High Courts, including Allahabad, Gujarat, Punjab & Haryana, and Madras, have granted interim protection to similarly situated parties. The interim orders prevent the enforcement of final orders or recovery until further directions.4. The Standing Counsel for CGST refers to a Supreme Court case, Naresh Chandra Agarwal vs. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, emphasizing the Court's approach to challenges against rules made under governing statutes.5. The interpretation of 'force majeure' under the CGST Act, 2017 includes events like war, epidemic, or calamities affecting statutory provisions' implementation. The Court notes that the time limit under Section 73(10) was previously extended before the challenged notifications.6. Considering the interim reliefs granted by various High Courts and the existence of similar issues under examination, the Court decides to stay the enforcement of the recovery amount assessed in the Order-in-Original until further orders.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
