GST S. 168A Invocation Challenged: Calcutta HC Entertains Writ alleging No ‘Force Majeure’ Existed to Justify Time Extension [Read Order]

The Calcutta High Court has granted relief in a writ petition challenging the validity of an adjudication order passed under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Act, where the petitioner has questioned the very invocation of Section 168A for extending statutory timelines in the absence of any force majeure situation.

The writ petition filed by Ramkrishna Banerjee (petitioner) challenged an adjudication order dated 11 August 2024 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act, determining tax liability against the petitioner.

The order was based on Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28 December 2023 (along with a corresponding State notification), purportedly issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017.

The petitioner contended that the invocation of Section 168A was ultra vires, as the provision permits extension of time limits only in cases of force majeure.

It was argued that no force majeure circumstances existed at the relevant time to justify such extension.

Therefore the petitioner asserted that the foundational notification itself was beyond the scope of statutory authority, rendering the consequential adjudication order unsustainable.

Section 168A empowers the Government to extend time limits prescribed under the Act in circumstances of force majeure.

Apart from challenging the vires of the notification, the petitioner also alleged procedural shortcomings in the adjudication process.

It was contended that no opportunity of personal hearing was granted, despite the order adversely affecting the petitioner’s rights. Such omission constitutes a violation of Section 75(4) of the GST Act as well as the principles of natural justice, said the petitioner’s counsel, Adv. Avra Mazumder

Section 75(4) mandates that an opportunity of hearing shall be granted where an adverse decision is given.

The Court noted that the vires of the notifications issued under Section 168A had been directly challenged, which justified entertaining the writ petition. It further observed that the alleged violation of Section 75(4) and the improper mode of service raised substantial questions affecting the validity of the adjudication order.

Therefore, the bench of Justice Om Narayan Rai, accepting the petitioner’s explanation for delay in filing the petition, restrained the GST authorities from taking any recovery steps.

The attachment on the bank account was also ordered to be lifted. The matter is still pending before the court for its final decision.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates