TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1662
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner- M/s Friends Medicos has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 30th May, 2024 (hereinafter, 'impugned SCN') and consequent impugned demand order dated 29th August, 2024 (hereinafter, 'impugned order'). The petition also raises a challenge to the rectification order dated 25th November, 2025. 4. Vide the impugned order, the total demand confirmed against the Petitioner is as follows: 4. Details of demand: (Amount in Rs.) Sr. No Tax Rate (%) Turnover Tax Period Act POS (Place of Supply Tax Interest Penalty Fee Other Total Form To 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding deadlines. In respect of Notification no.9, the recommendation was made prior to the issuance of the same. However, insofar as Notification No. 56/2023 (Central Tax) the challenge is that the extension was granted contrary to the mandate under Section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and ratification was given subsequent to the issuance of the notification. The notification incorrectly states that it was on the recommendation of the GST Council. Insofar as the Notification No. 56 of 2023 (State Tax) is concerned, the challenge is to the effect that the same was issued on 11th July, 2024 after the expiry of the limitation in terms of the Notification No.13 of 2022 (State Tax). 5. In fact, Notification Nos. 0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of this Court is whether the time limit for adjudication of show cause notice and passing order under Section 73 of the GST Act and SGST Act (Telangana GST Act) for financial year 2019-2020 could have been extended by issuing the Notifications in question under Section 168-A of the GST Act. 6. There are many other issues also arising for consideration in this matter. 7. Dr. Muralidhar pointed out that there is a cleavage of opinion amongst different High Courts of the country. 8. Issue notice on the SLP as also on the prayer for interim relief, returnable on 7-3-2025." 7. In the meantime, the challenges were also pending before the Bombay High Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court. In the Punjab and Haryan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt. 9. Apart from the challenge to the notifications itself, various counsels submit that even if the same are upheld, they would still pray for relief for the parties as the Petitioners have been unable to file replies due to several reasons and were unable to avail of personal hearings in most cases. In effect therefore in most cases the adjudication orders are passed ex-parte. Huge demands have been raised and even penalties have been imposed. 10. Broadly, there are six categories of cases which are pending before this Court. While the issue concerning the validity of the impugned notifications is presently under consideration before the Supreme Court, this Court is of the prima facie view that, depending upon the cat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso uploaded on the GST Portal 26th August, 2024. Subsequently, the impugned order was passed on 29th August, 2024. Thereafter, a rectification application was filed by the Petitioner on 26th November, 2024, seeking rectification of the impugned order. An order was then passed dismissing the rectification application on 25th November, 2025. 10. One of the pleas of the Petitioner is that a reply to the impugned SCN was filed by the Petitioner. However, in the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority wrongly records that no reply has been filed and thus, the reply filed by the Petitioner has not been considered at all by the adjudicating authority while passing the impugned order. Thereafter, the rectification application filed by the Pe....