Limitation extension under GST challenged; interim protection granted against demand pending further hearing.

A writ challenge questioned whether extended limitation notifications could validly support issuance of a Section 73 WBGST/CGST adjudication order for the relevant tax period, and whether Section 168A permitted such extension only in force majeure-type circumstances. The petitioner argued that the notice and demand were jurisdictionally barred because the statutory time limits had been extended after the relevant period. The Court found a prima facie case for interim intervention and noted that a coordinate Bench had granted limited protection in an identical matter. Interim protection was granted by staying the impugned demand until the end of December 2024 or further order, with affidavits directed for the next hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended time limit notifications could be relied upon for issuing the order under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 for the relevant tax period, whether Section 168A of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 supported such extension in the stated circumstances, and whether interim protection should be granted against the impugned demand.

Analysis: The writ petition raised a jurisdictional challenge to the notice and adjudication order on the basis that the statutory time limit for initiation and completion of proceedings had allegedly been extended by notifications issued after the relevant tax period. The petitioner relied on Section 168A of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 and contended that the extension power was linked to force majeure, while the respondents sought affidavit opportunity. The Court found that a prima facie case had been made out and also noticed that a coordinate Bench had granted limited interim protection in an identical matter.

Outcome: Interim protection was granted by staying the impugned demand till the end of December, 2024 or until further order, whichever was earlier, and affidavits were directed to be exchanged for further hearing.

---