SKT Swamy Auto Agency Vs Union of India (Madras High Court)
In the case of SKT Swamy Auto Agency Vs Union of India, the Madras High Court addressed multiple writ petitions challenging the validity of GST Notification No. 56/2023. The court, citing an earlier judgment, declared the notification illegal and vitiated, remanding the cases back to the assessing authorities for fresh consideration.
The petitioners in this matter contended that Notification No. 56/2023 was contrary to a previous Supreme Court order. The High Court concurred, referring to its common order dated June 12, 2025, in a batch of similar cases (W.P.Nos.17184 of 2024, etc.). That precedent established several grounds for invalidating the notification.
Judicial Precedents:
1. Supreme Court Order dated January 10, 2022: This order, passed under Article 142 of the Constitution, provided for the exclusion of the period from March 15, 2020, to February 28, 2022, when calculating the limitation period under Section 73(2) and (10) of the CGST Act. The Madras High Court’s ruling is built upon the premise that Notification No. 56/2023 diminished this extended limitation period, which was a vested right for the authorities.
2. Madras High Court Order dated June 12, 2025 (W.P.Nos.17184 of 2024, etc.): This is the primary judicial precedent relied upon in the current case. The court’s earlier ruling had meticulously outlined the reasons for the invalidity of both Notification Nos. 9 and 56 of 2023. The key findings from that order, reiterated in this judgment, were:
- Contradiction with Supreme Court order: The notifications were found to diminish the limitation period extended by the Supreme Court, thus being contrary to its purpose.
- Erroneous assumption: The court held that the notifications were based on an incorrect understanding of the law and the scope of the Supreme Court’s order under Article 142.
- Arbitrariness: The notifications were deemed to extinguish the authorities’ vested right to take action by shortening the limitation period, a move considered arbitrary.
- Procedural Irregularities: The court noted that Notification No. 56/2023 was issued before the recommendations of the GST Council, which is a statutory requirement, and was based on recommendations from the Goods and Services Tax Implementation Committee (GIC), which cannot substitute the GST Council.
Court’s Directions:
