https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756943 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. en-us Mon, 05 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Aug 2024 16:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756943 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. Case-Laws GST Mon, 05 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756943