Tata Play Limited Vs Union of India (Madras High Court)
Extension of limitation Period requires strict compliance with force majeure conditions with GST Council recommendation
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in Tata Play Limited v. Union of India and Others [W.P. Nos. 17184 of 2023 and batch dated June 12, 2025] held that Notification No. 56/2023-CT issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act were ultra vires and unsustainable, due to absence of valid recommendation from the GST Council at the time of issuance.
Facts:
Tata Play Limited and other petitioners challenged the validity of Notification No. 56/2023-CT issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act. These notifications extended the limitation period for issuing orders under Section 73(10) of the CGST Act for FY 2018-19 and 2019-20. The Petitioners contended that
- conditions precedent for invoking Section 168A were not satisfied,
- the term “force majeure” under the Explanation to Section 168A had been misapplied, and
- that impugned Notification No. 56/2023-CT, was issued even before any recommendation was made by GST Council.
Issues:
- Whether Notification No. 9/2023-CT dated March 31, 2023 and Notification No. 56/2023-CT dated December 28, 2023 issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act are delegated legislation or conditional legislation?
- Whether the issuance of such notifications without establishing a proximate force majeure event renders them ultra vires Section 168A?
- Whether recommendation of the GIC can substitute the statutory requirement of recommendation by the GST Council?
- Whether post-facto ratification by the GST Council validates a notification issued earlier under Section 168A?
- Whether the impugned notifications extinguish a vested right or are contrary to Article 142 of the Constitution?
Held:
