https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465606 A writ petition challenged the validity of Central Tax notifications extending timelines, contending that issuance under s.168A of the CGST Act requires a recommendation of the GST Council and raising issues as to whether any subsequent ratification could cure an absence of such recommendation. The HC held that, since s.168A prima facie conditions issuance on the GST Council's recommendation, the respondents must specifically address in their counter-affidavit the asserted lack of recommendation, the claimed power of ratification, and the notifications' validity in light of s.168A; accordingly, time was granted to file a counter-affidavit and the matter was directed to be listed for further hearing. en-us Mon, 21 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Jan 2026 07:07:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465606 A writ petition challenged the validity of Central Tax notifications extending timelines, contending that issuance under s.168A of the CGST Act requires a recommendation of the GST Council and raising issues as to whether any subsequent ratification could cure an absence of such recommendation. The HC held that, since s.168A prima facie conditions issuance on the GST Council's recommendation, the respondents must specifically address in their counter-affidavit the asserted lack of recommendation, the claimed power of ratification, and the notifications' validity in light of s.168A; accordingly, time was granted to file a counter-affidavit and the matter was directed to be listed for further hearing. Case-Laws GST Mon, 21 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465606