Barkataki Print And Media Services Vs Union of India And 4 Ors. (Gauhati High Court)
In the case of Barkataki Print And Media Services Vs Union of India & Ors., the Gauhati High Court assessed the legality of Notification No. 56/2023-CT issued without the recommendation of the GST Council. The key issue was whether the notification, extending time limits under Section 168A of the GST Act, was ultra vires, as it lacked the Council’s recommendation and did not arise from a force majeure event, as required by law. Section 168A grants the government power to extend deadlines, but only with GST Council approval and in situations of force majeure. The court referred to the precedent set in M. Kurian Vs. State of Kerala, where the Supreme Court ruled that recommendations were mandatory for government actions under similar circumstances. The absence of such recommendations in this case raised concerns about the legal validity of the notification. Furthermore, the court explored Articles 246A and 279A of the Constitution, which establish the role of the GST Council in harmonizing tax policies between the central and state governments. The court highlighted that while the Council’s recommendations are important, they are not binding but hold significant weight in maintaining the federal balance between the Centre and the States. Thus, the absence of the GST Council’s recommendation in this instance questioned the notification’s legal foundation. Court is of the opinion that the Notification No. 56/2023-CT dated 28.12.2023 is ultra vires the Central Act and the same is not legally sustainable in law. Accordingly, the same is set aside and quashed.
