TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1682
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s drawn our attention to the prayers in the present Petition, which, inter alia, challenge the Notification dated 28th December 2023 issued by the Respondent in exercise of its powers. 3. Our attention has also been invited to a recent order passed by this Court in Rite Equipments Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. in Writ Petition No. 1443 of 2025, dated 25th February 2026, wherein, following an earlier order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Shyam Udyog vs. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition (L) No. 10058 of 2025), which is extracted therein, the Petition was admitted and interim relief came to be granted. The said order is required to be noted, which reads thus:- P.C. 1. We have heard Mr. Raghur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hereafter. 2. The above Writ Petition challenges the Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 issued by Respondent No.1 (Union of India) and Notification No. 56/2023 dated 16th January, 2024 issued by Respondent No. 2 (State of Maharashtra) exercising powers under Section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). Consequently, the Petitioner also seeks quashing of the impugned Order dated 12th August, 2024 passed by Respondent No.4 under Section 73(9) of the MGST Act. 3. The short point in this Writ Petition is that the Notifications issued under Section 168A, extending the time limits specified under the CGST Act, are wholly illegal and ultra vires. The main ground of challenge....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the Impugned Order dated 12th August 2024 being Exhibit C to this Petition;" 7. We grant liberty to the parties to apply in the event the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court is disposed of one way or the other." 4. Mr. Raghuraman has also drawn our attention to the decision of the Gauhati High Court in Barkataki Print and Media Services vs. Union of India (2024) 22 Centax 479 (Gau.), wherein the Court has quashed and set aside the Notification dated 28 December, 2023 extending the period for passing an order under Section 73(10) of CGST Act. It is submitted that the challenge to the said decision, at the instance of revenue, is pending consi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hin a period of 12 days from the date of the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority, recovery proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner. In particular, the electronic credit ledger of the Petitioner was debited on 17th February 2026, thereby reducing the available credit to nil as a consequence of the impugned order passed against the Petitioner. 6. He submits that the interim relief granted by this Court in Shyam Udyog as also in Rite Equipments Pvt. Ltd. would enure to the benefit of the Petitioner, insofar as the prayers in the present Petition in seeking restoration of the re-credit of an amount of Rs. 1,10,23,478/-, which has been debited by the department. 7. In this context, our attention has been drawn to pra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... even before the expiry of the prescribed period of appeal, the impugned recovery action has been resorted to, and the Petitioner's electronic credit ledger has been debited. It is submitted that such action has purportedly been taken under Section 78 of the CGST Act. 9. The submissions of Mr. Raghuraman are opposed by Ms. Chavan, learned Additional Government Pleader, who submits that the action taken by the Department is justified and that there is nothing inappropriate or unlawful in debiting the Petitioner's electronic credit ledger. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, we are of the opinion that the challenge as raised in the present Petition is similar to the challenge as raised in ....