Brunda Infra Pvt. Limited and Others. Vs Additional Commissioner of Central Tax (Telangana High Court)
In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners have called in question the legality, validity and propriety of notification Nos.13/2022, dated 05.07.2022, 9 and 56/2023, dated 31.03.2023 and 28.12.2023, respectively. The pari materia/ corresponding notification Nos.118/2023, dated 25.08.2023 and 170/2023, dated 17.12.2023 issued by State of Telangana are also subject matter of challenge. These notifications are admittedly issued in purported exercise of power under Section 168A of The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, ‘the GST Act’).
Factual background and Contention of the petitioners:
2. The facts are taken from W.P. No. 33390 of 2024. Sri S. Ravi, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri P. Venkata Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this matter relates to F.Y. 2019-2020. The show-cause notice was issued on 31.05.2024. The Order-in-Original (‘OIO’) was passed on 29.08.2024 after the maximum period of limitation prescribed under Section 73(10) of the GST Act. Under the garb of extension of limitation as per impugned notifications, said OIO came to be passed. Criticizing the impugned notification Nos. 9 and 56 of 2023, it is contended that on the date of issuance of these notifications, no force majeure conditions were in existence. Section 168A of the GST Act, in no uncertain terms makes it clear that limitation can be extended on availability of ‘special circumstances’. In absence of force majeure circumstance on the date of issuance of notifications, these notifications cannot be said to be passed based on enabling provision.
