Writ petition challenges notifications under Section 168A of CGST Act; interim relief granted pending Supreme Court developments.

The HC addressed a writ petition challenging certain notifications under Section 168A of the CGST Act, arguing they lacked GST Council recommendation and were thus illegal. The Court acknowledged the arguable nature of the issues, noting similar cases are pending before the SC. It granted interim relief, preventing Respondents from enforcing the impugned order until the petition's final resolution. The decision was based on a prima facie case regarding the notifications' validity and their impact on the order. The Court issued Rule, with some Respondents waiving service, and allowed parties to apply based on SC developments.

---

---

The Writ Petition challenges the validity of notifications issued under Section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), specifically Notification No. 9/2023-Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023, Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023, Notification No. 9/2023-State Tax dated 24th May, 2023, and Notification No. 56/2023-State Tax dated 16th January, 2024. The Petitioner argues that the latter two notifications were not issued on the recommendation of the GST Council, as required by Section 168A, rendering them illegal and ultra vires. The impugned Order No. E-536/1106/LTU-03/GST Audit/2019-20/2024-25/B-174, Mumbai, dated 29th August, 2024, passed by Respondent No. 3 under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act, is also challenged as it falls beyond the extended time limits set by the notifications.The main contention revolves around the legality of the notifications issued under Section 168A and whether they were recommended by the GST Council. The Petitioner argues noncompliance with the recommendation requirement, while the Respondent contends that Section 168A was enacted to address exceptional circumstances like wars and pandemics, including the Covid-19 pandemic, which qualifies as a force majeure event. The Court acknowledges the arguable nature of the issues raised, noting that similar matters are pending before the Supreme Court.In granting interim relief, the Court refers to a previous case where the Nagpur Bench directed the Respondents not to take coercive action against the Petitioner. Considering the validity of the notifications and the implications on the impugned order, the Court finds a strong prima facie case for granting interim relief. Consequently, the Court directs the Respondents to refrain from acting upon the impugned order pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition.The Court issues Rule, with certain Respondents waiving service and others receiving notice. The decision to grant interim relief is based on the need to assess the validity of the notifications and the potential impact on the impugned order. The order is digitally signed for immediate action, with parties granted liberty to apply based on developments in the Supreme Court proceedings.

---