GST limitation extension requires Council recommendation and force majeure; invalid notification could not sustain time-barred adjudication orders.

Section 168A of the CGST Act permits extension of statutory time limits only on the GST Council's recommendation and where force majeure justifies the extension; both conditions operate as mandatory prerequisites. The Gauhati HC held that a notification issued without prior Council recommendation and without lawful consideration of force majeure was a colourable exercise of power and ultra vires the parent statute, so it was quashed. Once that notification fell, the limitation under Section 73(10) revived, and Orders-in-Original passed after expiry of the applicable period, without any effective pari materia State notification, became time-barred and without jurisdiction. Those adjudication orders were therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the extension notification issued under Section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was valid in the absence of a recommendation of the GST Council and without proper consideration of force majeure. (ii) Whether the Order-in-Originals passed beyond the time limit under Section 73(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the corresponding State Act were without jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the extension notification issued under Section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was valid in the absence of a recommendation of the GST Council and without proper consideration of force majeure.

Analysis: Section 168A permits extension of statutory time limits only where the Government acts on the recommendation of the GST Council and the action is necessitated by force majeure. The judgment treated the recommendation as a precondition and held that, in the constitutional scheme under Articles 246A and 279A, such recommendation is not a mere formality but an essential trigger for the exercise of delegated power. On the facts, the impugned notification was issued without any prior recommendation of the Council, and the record also did not show a lawful consideration of force majeure before the extension was granted. The notification was therefore viewed as a colourable exercise of power and as being contrary to the parent statute.

Conclusion: The notification was held to be ultra vires and was quashed.

Issue (ii): Whether the Order-in-Originals passed beyond the time limit under Section 73(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the corresponding State Act were without jurisdiction.

Analysis: Once the extension notification was declared invalid, the statutory outer limit for passing orders under Section 73(10) revived. The Orders-in-Original challenged in the batch had been passed after the applicable limitation periods had expired, and there was no effective pari materia State notification covering the relevant periods. In that situation, the adjudicating orders were rendered time-barred and could not be sustained in law.

Conclusion: The Orders-in-Original were held to be without jurisdiction and were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The batch of writ petitions succeeded, the impugned extension notification was invalidated, and the consequential adjudication orders were quashed for having been passed beyond the permissible statutory period.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute authorises extension of limitation only on the recommendation of the GST Council and on account of force majeure, both requirements operate as mandatory conditions precedent; a notification issued without satisfying them is ultra vires and cannot support orders passed beyond the original limitation period.

---