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>GST notification violates Section 168A due to missing Council recommendation, interim protection granted</h1> <h3>M/s. BARKATAKI PRINT AND MEDIA SERVICES, DHRUBAJYOTI BARKOTOKY Versus UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS., THE CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS, THE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX COUNCIL, THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER STATE TAX, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER STATE TAX</h3> M/s. BARKATAKI PRINT AND MEDIA SERVICES, DHRUBAJYOTI BARKOTOKY Versus UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS., THE CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS, THE ... Issues:1. Validity of a notification issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs under Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017 without a recommendation from the GST Council.2. Whether the notification extending the time limit for passing orders under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act, 2017 is ultra vires the law.3. Applicability of force majeure in extending the time limit for assessments under the CGST Act, 2017.4. Interpretation of similar provisions in the Assam Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 in relation to the notification issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs.5. Entitlement of the Petitioners to relief pending the notice and the validity of the assessment order dated 26.04.2024.Analysis:1. The petitioners challenged a notification issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs without a recommendation from the GST Council, extending the time limit for passing orders under the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioners argued that the notification was ultra vires Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017 as it lacked the mandatory recommendation. They also contended that the extension was not justified as the reasons cited, such as lack of manpower, did not constitute force majeure. The petitioners further highlighted that the Assam GST Act, 2017 did not provide for a similar extension, making the notification inconsistent with the law.2. The Respondents, representing the Central and Assam GST authorities, defended the notification by citing a recommendation from the GST Implementation Committee and the potential amendments through the Finance Bill 2024. They argued that the Petitioners would receive relief once the amendments were implemented. However, the Court observed that the notification did not align with Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017, potentially rendering all actions based on it invalid. The Court acknowledged the need to examine the applicability of force majeure, as claimed by the Respondents, based on the contents of the GST Council meeting minutes.3. The Court granted interim protection to the Petitioners, restraining coercive actions based on the impugned assessment order dated 26.04.2024 until the next hearing. It directed the Respondents to file affidavits by a specified date, indicating a thorough examination of the issues raised and the need for further clarification regarding the validity of the notification and the applicability of force majeure in the context of the CGST Act, 2017.
TaxTMI 