Future Art And Display Vs Sales Tax Officer (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court, in Future Art and Display v. Sales Tax Officer (decision dated 25 September 2025), addressed a challenge under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution concerning an order passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Delhi, for the financial year 2017-18. The petitioner, M/s Future Art and Display, also contested the validity of two notifications—Notification No. 9/2023-Central Tax (31 March 2023) and Notification No. 9/2023-State Tax (22 June 2023). These notifications extend limitation periods for proceedings under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“CGST Act”) and State GST laws.
Background of the Notifications
The legality of the impugned notifications has been the subject of extensive litigation nationwide. Section 168A of the CGST Act allows the government to extend time limits on the recommendation of the GST Council during disasters or force majeure situations. The petitioner and similarly placed assessees argued that the mandatory recommendations were either absent or issued retrospectively, making the extensions invalid.
Various High Courts have delivered differing rulings. The Allahabad High Court upheld Notification No. 9/2023, while the Patna High Court upheld Notification No. 56/2023. Conversely, the Gauhati High Court quashed Notification No. 56/2023, holding it inconsistent with Section 168A. The Telangana High Court also raised doubts over Notification No. 56/2023 without conclusively ruling on vires. That judgment is now before the Supreme Court in M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. (SLP No. 4240/2025). On 21 February 2025, the Supreme Court issued notice in the matter, acknowledging divergent High Court views and keeping the issue open for authoritative determination.
