TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 299
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, assisted by Ms. Pravalika Goud WRIT PETITION NOS. 1154, 2123 2851, 3624, 4680, 5238, 5485, 5567, 5617, 5911, 5917, 6692, 6856, 7140, 7208, 7596, 8015, 8022, 8133, 8196, 8273, 8530, 8569, 8768, 9177, 9435, 9490, 9790, 9947, 9979, 10322, 10331, 10565, 10591, 10725, 10733, 10766, 10790, 13212, 13291, 13737, 13746, 13756, 13767, 13777, 13779, 13786, 13795, 13799, 13804, 13818, 13819, 13821, 13822, 13823, 13841, 13842, 13853, 13859, 13917, 13934, 13940, 14100, 14179, 14182, 14268, 14281, 14289, 14437, 14476, 14496, 14729, 14843, 14896, 14947, 15013, 15150, 15201, 15332, 15381, 15439, 15452, 15479, 15483, 15492, 15510, 15569, 15648, 15855, 15863, 16038, 16118, 16281, 16350, 16374, 16656, 16875, 16920, 17012, 17015, 17224, 17294, 17682, 17684, 17766, 17916, 17967, 17990, 18097, 18115, 18117, 18126, 18172, 18176, 18198, 18310, 18425, 18438, 18486, 18613, 18618, 18684, 18894, 19008, 19205, 19594, 19757, 19992, 20150, 20164, 20232, 20233, 20234, 20235, 20355, 20371, 20429, 20671, 20676, 20680, 22410, 22472, 22524, 22535, 22552, 22588, 23087, 23282, 23538, 23962, 25177, 2527....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The Order-in-Original ('OIO') was passed on 29.08.2024 after the maximum period of limitation prescribed under Section 73 (10) of the GST Act. Under the garb of extension of limitation as per impugned notifications, said OIO came to be passed. Criticizing the impugned notification Nos. 9 and 56 of 2023, it is contended that on the date of issuance of these notifications, no force majeure conditions were in existence. Section 168A of the GST Act, in no uncertain terms makes it clear that limitation can be extended on availability of 'special circumstances'. In absence of force majeure circumstance on the date of issuance of notifications, these notifications cannot be said to be passed based on enabling provision. 3. To buttress aforesaid contention, the letter written by Secretary, Home Department to Chief Secretaries of all the States, dated 22.03.2023 was highlighted to establish that there was no need to invoke provisions of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. Thus, COVID-19 period, admittedly, came to an end before impugned notifications were issued. Paragraph Nos. 6(1), (6), (7) and (8) of said letter were relied upon. 4. The next limb of argument is that COVID-19 relax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dgment of Supreme Court in Energy Watchdog v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission MANU/SC/0408/2017 was referred to show that necessary ingredients to attract force majeure clause were absent in the instant case. 9. It was common ground taken by learned counsel for the parties that Section 168A of the GST Act provides that extension notification can be issued on the recommendation of the GST Council. So far as notification No. 56/2023 is concerned, there was no prior notification of GST Council. The counter of the Department filed in these cases shows that the notification No. 56/2023 was issued on the basis of decision taken by GST Implementation Committee/Law Committee. Thus decision of Implementation/Law Committee was ratified by GST Council after six months from the date of issuance of notification No. 56/2023. The meaning of words 'recommendation' and 'ratification' were highlighted to show the difference between the two. The 'recommendation' is always prior in time which forms basis for taking a decision, whereas, 'ratification' is a subsequent exercise for a decision which has already been taken. In view of statutory mandate ingrained in Section 168A of the GST Act,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecutive/administrative power. It does not deal with exercise of subordinate legislative power. Counter of State Government (para No. 33) filed in W.P. No. 21851 of 2024 was pointed out where State itself treated the power of issuing impugned notifications as 'legislative power'. The judgment of Allahabad High Court in Graziano Transmissions (supra) was also referred to support the same point. Since impugned notifications are issued in exercise of legislative power therefore, 'ratification' aspect dealt with in certain judgments of Supreme Court while exercising executive/administrative power cannot be pressed into service. Putting it differently, it is urged that subordinate legislative and administrative actions cannot be judged on the same parameters. Since statute envisages the requirement of recommendation of council before taking decision of extension of limitation, no other method can be adopted. 14. The meaning of words 'approval' and 'recommendation' as used in Black's Law dictionary and considered by Gauhati High Court in M/s. Barkataki Print and Media Services, Dhrubajyoti Barkotoku (supra) was also referred. 15. The alternative submission of learned Senior Counsel ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the date of issuance of notification No. 56/2023, dated 28.12.2023. Rakesh Kumar Agarwalla v. National Law School of India University (2021) 1 SCC 539 and V.M. Kurian v. State of Kerala (2001) 4 SCC 215 were relied upon to show difference between the words 'consultation' and 'recommendation'. 20. Banarsi Debi v. Income-Tax Officer AIR 1964 SC 1742 was referred to submit that in view of the principle laid down therein, a conjoint reading of Sections 73 (10) and 168A of the GST Act shows that the provisions are substantive in nature. Such provisions deserve strict interpretation. Section 168A talks about extension of time limit 'specified', 'prescribed' or 'notified' in the GST Act. This power can be once exercised and the law does not permit extension by issuing subsequent notification whereby the time limit originally specified under Section 73 (10) can be extended. 21. Section 73 (2) of the GST Act envisages issuances of notice and for this, time limit is specified. This time limit is regarding initiation of proceedings, whereas Section 75 (10) prescribes expiry date by putting a deeming clause. 22. The bone of contention of the learned Senior Counsel is that Section 168A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enior Counsel, for distinguishing the judgment in Barhonia Engicon Private Limited (supra) and relied on the judgment of Division Bench of Jharkhand High Court in Rungta Mines Limited v. State of Jharkhand 2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 1188 to show that aforesaid circular of CBIC dated 20.07.2021 was considered by the High Court in relation to Value Added Tax and it was made clear that COVID-19 relaxation is not applicable for extending limitation in such matters. 28. Sri V. Sridharan, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment of Privy Council, which was followed in T. Kaliamurthi v. Five Gori Thaikkal Wakf (2008) 9 SCC 306 to submit that such limitation cannot be extended with retrospective effect. The exercise of extension of limitation is an exercise of substitutive nature. The judgment of P.K. Unni v. Nirmala Industries (1990) 2 SCC 378 was relied upon to submit that such extension of limitation is impermissible. Although, the judgment of P.K. Unni (supra) was overruled by the Constitution Bench in Dadi Jagannadham v. Jammulu Ramulu (2001) 7 SCC 71, it is not overruled on the point in question (paragraph No. 15 of the judgment of P.K. Unni). 29. Lastly, learned Senior Counse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Council Meeting, it is urged that COVID-19 pandemic was not only considered for recommending extension of limitation. The other administrative bottlenecks were also cited as reasons which cannot form part of force majeure clause. The ratification of notification No. 56/23 took place only on 22.06.2024. Such ratification is unknown to GST Act. 34. Sri P. Govind Reddy, learned counsel appearing in W.P.No.2851 of 2024, relied upon Section 168A of the GST Act and urged that the purpose of insertion of this provision is for empowering and enabling the primary legislation. Such provisions must be strictly construed. The power under Section 168A can be used for the purpose of cases 'not complied' or 'completed'. It cannot be used for the purpose of initiation of proceedings. A judgment of United States of America distinguishing between 'cause of action' and 'action' is also relied upon. Why the benefit of extension of limitation was extended only in favour of department and not for tax payers is another limb of argument. The force majeure period at best covers five months that is equal to the duration of COVID-19 pandemic period. 35. Sri M. Ramachandra Murthy, learned counsel for p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quals, which hits Article 14 of the Constitution. In the Notification No. 13/2022, the benefit was granted to the Tax payers as well, whereas, no such benefit was extended in the impugned Notification Nos. 9/2023 and 56/2023. If COVID-19 was a global Pandemic, the Revenue was not the only sufferer. Tax payers were also sufferers. Thus, extending limitation only for Department by Notification Nos. 9/2023 and 56/2023 hits Article 14 of the Constitution. However, on a specific query from the Bench, learned counsel for the petitioner, fairly, admitted that there is no pleading regarding discrimination in the body of the writ affidavit. It is strenuously contended by Sri Karthik Ramana Puttam Reddy, learned counsel, that the period for which limitation could have been extended is only between 05.07.2022 to 31.07.2023. While issuing Notification No. 13/2022, dated 05.07.2022, it is presumed that the Revenue was aware of the hardship, which took place in interregnum period and therefore, there was no occasion to extend it any further in subsequent meeting. The hardship period can be between May 2021 and 05.07.2022 only. The minutes of the 49th Meeting of GST Council and Clause 5.7 shows t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ification No. 56, there existed no condition of existence of recommendation of the Council. In support of this submission, the judgment in Kamla Prasad Khetan v. Union of India 1957 SCC OnLine SC 27 was relied upon. It is further supported by para No. 24 of the judgment in Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh v. State of Goa 2022 SCC OnLine SC 587. 42. The judgment of Allahabad High Court in Graziano Transmissions (supra) is highlighted to show that High Court clearly held that the recommendation of Council is sine qua non for issuing the notification. The Gauhati High Court in M/s. Barkataki Print and Media Services (supra) rightly held that Notification No. 56 is assailable, because it is not issued pursuant to any recommendation of GST Council. The judgment of the Patna High Court in Barhonia Engicon Private Limited (supra) is sought to be distinguished on the ground that difference of 'recommendation' and 'ratification' was not considered. The Circular dated 20.07.2021 was not considered and erroneously the force majeure order of the Supreme Court was treated to be a reason justifying extension of limitation whereas even Revenue cannot raise that point in view of their own Circular. 43....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is brought at par with the assessee covered under Section 74 who is differently situated. Thus, un-equals are treated to be equals which hits Article 14 of the Constitution. No data is considered as to how many cases were pending during COVID-19 period which could not be decided and without undertaking aforesaid necessary exercise, as a matter of course, the limitation was extended which is bad in law. 46. Section 172 of the GST Act envisages the power of removal of difficulties. When such power is exercised, the order is required to be placed before the Parliament. Whereas, under Section 168A, there exists no such requirement to place the notification before the Parliament. Thus, there is always a possibility of abuse of power in issuing notification in purported exercise of power under Section 168A. Learned Senior Counsel also placed reliance on the minutes of the GST Council and pointed out that ratification had taken place without application of mind. The judgment in S.Srinivasan (supra) is cited to show that any such order which shows colorable exercise of power is bad in law. The judgment in General Officer Commanding-in-Chief v. Subhash Chandra Yadav (1988) 2 SCC 351 is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation can be given retrospective effect. It gives power to extend limitation relating to any provision under the GST Act. 52. Sri Dominic Fernandes placed reliance on different notifications issued from time to time. He relied on the first notification i.e., notification No. 35 of 2020, dated 03.04.2020, to highlight that there is a specific mention about force majeure reason i.e., 'COVID-19 pandemic'. The second notification i.e. notification No. 14/2021, dated 01.05.2021, also talks about pandemic. The third notification i.e., Notification No. 13/2022, dated 05.07.2022 was issued by referring both the previous notifications and it partially modified the previous notifications. Thus, only modification done is relating to limitation portion which stood substituted. Hence, contents of both the said notification Nos.35/2020 and 14/2021 must be read into notification No. 13/2022. If it is read conjointly in the said manner, there will be no doubt that the reason of 'pandemic' must be read into the subsequent notifications. 53. The above notifications show that benefits were given to tax payers also. Section 54 of the GST Act contains limitation of two years. After exemption for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roadly referred as 'deemed ratification'. The learned Standing Counsel further urged that five High Courts have considered the impugned notifications. The Kerala High Court in Faizal Traders Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner, considered the Notification Nos. 9/2023 and 13/2022 and dismissed the petition. Likewise, the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in M/s. Graziano Trasmissioni (supra) considered the challenge to Notification Nos. 9/2023 and 13/2022 and did not interfere in the said notifications. 60. He further urged that the Karnataka High Court in M/s. Sahaj Construction (supra) considered the challenge to Notification No. 9/2023 and declined interference. The Patna High Court in M/s. Barhonia Engicon Private Limited (supra) considered the Division Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court and refused to interfere in the Notifications Nos. 9/2023, 56/2023 and 13/2022. The singular judgment in which Notification No. 56/2023 was interfered with, is a Single Bench Judgment of Guwahati High Court in M/s. Barkataki Print and Media Services (supra). In M/s. Barhonia Engicon Private Limited (supra), the Patna High Court did not agree with this Single Bench judgment of Gauh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....period of limitation and this Court is under no obligation to examine the period of extension of limitation on any mathematical scale. Heavy reliance is placed on the expression ''in respect of'' used in Section 168A and its consideration by Allahabad High Court. The Allahabad High Court made it clear that the extension of limitation cannot be treated to be a one-time exercise. Repelling the challenge to the notification, liberty was reserved to the petitioners to avail the remedy of appeal by giving them forty five (45) days' time to prefer the appeal. 64. The judgment of Karnataka High Court in M/s. Garej Constructions (supra) was highlighted to show that challenge to Notification No. 9/2023 has failed. Heavy reliance is placed on the judgment of Patna High Court in M/s. Barhonia Engicon Private Limited (supra) to buttress the submission that the general orders of Supreme Court issued in suo motu jurisdiction relating to COVID-19 Pandemic are indeed applicable to the proceedings under the GST Act. The Patna High Court is in agreement with the Allahabad High Court. The Circular of the Department dated 20.07.2021, on which heavy reliance is placed by the petitioners, was conside....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Safari Retreat Private Limited (supra) and urged that if language of taxation statute is plain and unambiguous, it should be given effect to and there is no question to search for the intention of the law makers. Equitable considerations are out of question while interpreting taxing statute. Reliance is placed on Satish Ukey v. Devendra Gangadharrao Fadnavis (2019) 9 SCC 1 and Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. v. CIT, (2023) 6 SCC 451. Stand of Union Government:- 68. Sri B. Narsimha Sharma, learned Additional Solicitor General, while borrowing the argument of Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Standing Counsel for CBIC, urged that the jurisprudence relating to limitation shows that no one has any vested right in relation to the limitation. Before insertion of Section 168A in the GST Act, Section 172 was the only enabling provision to remove the difficulty. This provision also could be invoked only on the recommendation of the Council. Section 168A was introduced during COVID-19 Pandemic to take care of 'special circumstances'. Thus, language of this provision and each word used must be giv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issued in 'modification' of previous notifications. Thus, force majeure reasons given in the previous notifications must be read into the impugned notifications. The impugned notifications cannot be interfered with, merely, because in these notifications, the reason for force majeure is not spelled out separately. 71. It is submitted that the Law Committee requested for providing larger period of limitation, but GST Council provided lesser period. It shows that Council has applied its independent mind. Clause 2.8.1 of GST Implementation Committee minute was read out to show the march of events. It was done to highlight the circumstances in which the ratification exercise had been undertaken. Bajaj Hindustan Limited (supra) was relied upon to show that the word 'approval' can be at a later stage and once 'approval' or 'ratification' takes place it will date back to the date of original decision. 72. Learned Additional Solicitor General further submitted that in view of various circumstances prevailing, in the fitness of things, it was thought proper to extend the limitation and accordingly, impugned notifications have been issued. The inconvenience in holding the meeting of GS....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... limitation as per the said order of Supreme Court dated 10.01.2022. For this purpose, Arce Polymers (P) Ltd. v. Alphine Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. (2022) 2 SCC 221, is pressed into service. 78. The parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated above. 79. We have bestowed our anxious consideration on rival contentions and perused the record. FINDINGS:- 80. Taxation fundamentally operates as a legal principle, structured by a comprehensive set of laws, regulations, and statutory provisions that establish the processes for calculating, levying, and allocating taxes. These legal instruments, enacted by legislative bodies, aim to ensure fairness, equity and the effective financing of public services. They are crafted to prevent tax evasion, stimulate economic progress, and equitably distribute the tax obligation. However, the application of tax law is not a mere application of set rules. The determination of taxes involves a deep dive into the factual background. 81. In order to gather the extension of time limit under various notifications at a glance, it is apposite to mention the same in a table, which reads thus:- Year Last date of filing Annual Return....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....herefore restrictions imposed under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 were decided to be lifted. Thus, when impugned notifications were issued, the Pandemic was no more there and therefore 'force majeure' conditions are not satisfied. The argument on the first blush appears to be attractive, but, lost much of its shine when minutely examined in the light of language employed in Section 168A of the GST Act. Section 168A in no uncertain terms makes it clear that the time limit can be extended 'in respect of actions' which could not be completed or complied with, due to force majeure. The words 'in respect of' were considered by the Supreme Court in the context of Section 23 (1) (B) and it means that 'being connected with' (see Union of India and another v. Vijay Chand Jain AIR 1977 SC 1302). 85. The Allahabad High Court considered the words 'in respect of' in the case of Graziano Transmissioni (supra) and opined as under: "126. As submitted by Sri Mahajan, the words "due to force majeure" are preceded with a general expression "in respect of". Thus, besides intrinsic evidence existing in the Explanation to Section 168-A of the Act (as discussed above), there is equally co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... but substantive also looses its relevance in face of conditions seen fulfilled. Once the conditions for exercise of delegated legislative function stood fulfilled, no further test or scrutiny may arise, in that regard. Therefore, the decision of the Supreme Court in Sudhir Kumar Singh case [State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh, (2021) 19 SCC 706 : AIR 2020 SC 5215] and Independent Schools' Association, Chandigarh (Registered) case [Independent Schools' Assn. v. Union of India, (2022) 14 SCC 387] are also of no avail. Here, conditional legislation arose in accordance with law. Therefore, no fault is found therein. Accordingly, the decision in Lachmi Narain case [Lachmi Narain v. Union of India, (1976) 2 SCC 953 : 1976 SCC (Tax) 213 : (1976) 37 STC 267] is also not applicable to the present facts." (Emphasis Supplied) 86. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Allahabad High Court that the words 'in respect of actions' are very wide and brings within its ambit the previous actions of COVID-19 period, which could not be completed or complied with, due to force majeure. Thus, we are unable to persuade ourselves with the line of argument of learned counsel for the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (10): The proper officer shall issue the order under sub-section (9) within three years from the due date for furnishing of annual return for the financial year to which the tax not paid or short paid or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised relates to or within three years from the date of erroneous refund." (Emphasis Supplied) 89. The contention of Sri Sridharan, learned Senior Counsel, is that the limitation is to be gathered from a conjoint reading of Sections 44 and 73 (10) of the GST Act. By invoking Section 168A, the notification can be issued to extend the limitation provided in the aforesaid sections. In other words, the power to extend the limitation is relating to the limitation prescribed in Section 73 (10). Thus, such limitation could have been extended by issuing notification under Section 168A, whereas, respondents have issued multiple notifications including the impugned notifications, whereby they extended the time limit extended by notifications and not the time limit mentioned in Section 73 (10). This argument deserves serious consideration. No doubt, Section 73 (10) provides that the Proper Officer must issue order under Sub-Section 9 of Sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... what is done indirectly by rule-making authorities which are vested with powers in that behalf by the Act. (Vide Hubli Electricity Company Ltd. v. Province of Bombay [76 IA 57 at p. 66] and Narayanaswamy Naidu v. Krishnamurthi [ILR 1958 Mad 513 at p. 547]..." (Emphasis Supplied) 91. Thus, the expression "under the Act" is wide enough to include the notifications issued as per Section 168A of the GST Act and time limit extended under these notifications can very well be further extended, while exercising power "under the Act". Putting it differently, the time limit can be extended in three situations namely:- i) 'specified' in ii) 'prescribed' in or iii) 'notified' under the Act. The impugned notifications extending time limit fall within the ambit of 'notified' under the Act and such time limit can be extended by invoking power under Section 168A. It is equally important to note that the opening words of Sub-Section 1 of Section 168A. It opens with an overriding clause, which makes it clear that notwithstanding anything contained in the GST Act, such notifications extending time limit can be issued. In view of this analysis, this argument must f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d counsel for the parties relied on the judgment of Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. (supra) to canvass that the recommendation of the GST Council is not binding on the Government. In our view, this is not the point involved in the present case. This is nobody's case that the GST Council passed any recommendation, which became foundation of Notification No. 56/2023. The Government, in its wisdom may take a decision to modify or not to accept the recommendation of GST Council. Thus, the judgment of Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is of no assistance to Revenue. We are in respectful agreement with the findings given in this regard by Allahabad High Court in Graziano Transmissioni (supra) and Patna High Court in M/s. Barhonia Engicon Private Limited (supra). 95. The plain and unambiguous language of the statute in Section 168A leaves no room for any doubt that on the recommendation of the Council alone, Government can issue the notification. Thus, the argument and judgments relating to 'ratification' and giving stamp of approval to the decision of implementation committee/law committee with retrospective effect of GST Council fades into insignificance. We find substance in the argument of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ged any act or proceeding of the GST Council, which could have been saved under Clause 10 (c) of Article 279A. Instead, the notification of the Government No. 56/23 which is admittedly issued without there being any recommendation of Council is subject matter of challenge. Thus aforesaid provision of Constitution does not insulate the notification issued by the Government on the basis of any irregularity of the Council. Even otherwise, the irregularity cannot be said to be a 'procedural irregularity'. The Implementation Committee/Law Committee is neither a constitutional nor a statutory body. It is an in-house creation of GST Council for convenience to run the administration. The decision taken by Implementation Committee/Law Committee, on which Notification No. 56/2023 is based, cannot be said to be the decision of GST Council. The ratification of such legislative action is unknown to law. The judgments cited by Revenue were related to the executive action and were not dealing with legislative action, whereas, the judgment of Maratwada University (supra) deals with such subordinate legislative action. Thus, 'ratification' done after issuance of Notification No. 56/2023 will not pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion, consequences likely to ensue or inconvenience likely to result if the provision is read one way or the other and many more considerations relevant to the issue." (Emphasis Supplied) 101. The Apex Court in May George v. Tahsildar (2010) 13 SCC 98, at paragraph Nos.15 and 25 held as under: "15. While determining whether a provision is mandatory or directory, in addition to the language used therein, the Court has to examine the context in which the provision is used and the purpose it seeks to achieve. It may also be necessary to find out the intent of the legislature for enacting it and the serious and general inconveniences or injustice to persons relating thereto from its application. The provision is mandatory if it is passed for the purpose of enabling the doing of something and prescribes the formalities for doing certain things. 25. The law on this issue can be summarised to the effect that in order to declare a provision mandatory, the test to be applied is as to whether non-compliance with the provision could render the entire proceedings invalid or not. Whether the provision is mandatory or directory, depends upon the intent of the legisla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder Section 73/quasi judicial proceedings under the GST Act. Interestingly, Sri Nishant Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that despite directions of Supreme Court in suo motu jurisdiction extending limitation, the Department issued impugned notifications. Thus, they have waived their right to take benefit of extension of limitation as per the order of Supreme Court. He placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in Arce Polymers (P) Ltd. (supra). 105. Before dealing with this argument, it is apposite to consider the orders of Supreme Court, passed time to time, in suo motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020. On 23.03.2020, as rightly pointed out by Sri Dominic Fernandes this first order was related to Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Negotiable Instruments Act. However, on 8th March, 2021, in the said suo motu jurisdiction, the following directions were passed: "2. We have considered the suggestions of the learned Attorney General for India regarding the future course of action. We deem it appropriate to issue the following directions: - 1. In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, applic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings. We have passed this order in exercise of our powers under Article 142 read with Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Hence it shall be a binding order within the meaning of Article 141 on all Courts/Tribunals and Authorities." (Emphasis Supplied) 107. On 23.09.2021, the Supreme Court again ordered as under: "8. Therefore, we dispose of the M.A. No.665 of 2021 with the following directions: - I. In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 15.03.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 03.10.2021. II. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 03.10.2021. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 03.10.2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rescribed in relation to any proceeding of Court or Tribunal. The superficial reading of this direction No. IV can certainly lead to such confusion. However, a microscopic reading of para IV shows that there exists a "comma" between the expression ..... 'and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceeding' and 'outer limits (within which the Court or Tribunal can condone the delay)'. The punctuation has great significance in this paragraph. The "comma" is also used in similar manner by Supreme Court when direction was issued on 23.09.2021. 111. Justice G.P. Singh in Principle of Statutory Interpretation (12th Edition) recorded thus: 6. Punctuation ".......When a statute is carefully punctuated and there is doubt about its meaning, a weight should undoubtedly be given to punctuation...." ".....But it would appear, at any rate, with respect to modern statutes. State that if the statute in question is found to be careful punctuated, punctuation, though a minor element, may be resorted to for purposes of construction. An illustration of the aid derived from punctuation may be furnished from the case of Mohd. Shabbir v. St....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, a judgment of Supreme Court is something more, by virtue of Article 141/142, it declares the law for the nation (see Ganga Sugar Corporation Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1980 SC 286). The directions issued by Supreme Court in suo motu jurisdiction binds the entire nation and it cannot be said that the same are inapplicable in the present proceedings. A Constitution Bench of Apex Court in CCE v. Ratan Melting & Wire Industries (2008) 13 SCC 1 has drawn the curtains and held as under: "7. Circulars and instructions issued by the Board are no doubt binding in law on the authorities under the respective statutes, but when the Supreme Court or the High Court declares the law on the question arising for consideration, it would not be appropriate for the court to direct that the circular should be given effect to and not the view expressed in a decision of this Court or the High Court. So far as the clarifications/circulars issued by the Central Government and of the State Government are concerned they represent merely their understanding of the statutory provisions. They are not binding upon the court. It is for the court to declare what the particular provision of s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble to the proceeding under the GST Act. Thus, the question of validity of notifications pales into insignificance. Since the period between 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 stood excluded for the purpose of counting limitation by an order which became law of the land, the remaining argument relating to validity of notifications became academic in nature. After excluding limitation from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, it cannot be said that action of respondents in proceeding against the petitioners is barred by limitation. 117. The COVID-19 Pandemic created extraordinary difficulties which could not have been anticipated, measured and solved with mathematical precision. COVID-19 was not a creation of Government. Thus, hair-splitting in many aspects must be eschewed. For example, the argument of Sri Karthik Ramana Puttamreddy that in the initial notification extending limitation, 'spread of COVID' was shown as a reason which cannot be a justification for issuance of impugned notifications issued after COVID-19 was over. While dealing with such an extraordinary crisis, Government's action must be viewed in a broad perspective. 118. In view of our finding that period between 15.03.2020 to 28....