GST limitation challenge secures interim stay as Calcutta HC finds a prima facie jurisdictional issue.

The Calcutta HC granted interim protection against a GST demand and adjudication where the challenge centered on the validity of notifications extending limitation under Section 168A and the alleged absence of force majeure for issuing the notice and order for the relevant tax period. Treating the dispute as jurisdictional, the Court found a prima facie case for interim relief and noted that a coordinate Bench had already passed a limited interim order in an identical matter. The impugned demand was stayed until the end of December 2025 or until further order, and the writ petition was directed to proceed on affidavits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned demand and adjudication could be stayed at the interim stage on the basis of the challenge to the extension of limitation and the alleged absence of force majeure for issuance of the notice and order under the GST provisions.

Analysis: The petitioners assailed the notice and demand on the ground that the notifications extending time under the GST law, read with the power under Section 168A, could not justify initiation of proceedings for the relevant tax period in April 2024. The matter was treated as raising a jurisdictional issue. The Court found a prima facie case for interim protection and also noted that a coordinate Bench had granted a limited interim order in an identical matter.

Outcome: The impugned demand was stayed until the end of December 2025 or until further order, whichever is earlier, and the writ petition was directed to proceed on affidavits.

---