HC Strikes Down GST Notifications Curtailing Limitation Period

  • Blog|News|GST & Customs|
  • 5 Min Read
  • By Taxmann
  • |
  • Last Updated on 19 July, 2025

Latest from Taxmann

GST limitation period notification

Case Details: Tata Play Ltd. vs. Union of India - [2025] 176 taxmann.com 357 (Madras)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Mohammed Shaffiq, J.
  • Joseph Prabakar, Karthik Sundaram, V. Srikanth, N. Sriprakash, Adithya Reddy, N. Murali, Mrs R. Hemalatha, B. Satish Sundar, S. Muthuvenkatraman, B. Sivaraman, R. Kannan, A.K. Rajaraman, Prabhu Mukunth, Arunkumar, Raghavan, Ramabadran, Ms Lakshmi Kumaran, Sridharan Attorneys, ANR Jayaprathap, Mrs Hema Muralikrishnan, K. Thyagarajan, N.V. Balaji, M. Manimaran, A. Mohamed Ismail, Varun Pandian, Ms Radhika Chandrasekhar, Ms P.R. Lavanya, Ms. Allwin Godwin, A. Chandrasekaran, G. Natarajan, K.A. Parthasarathy, R. Anish Kumar, G. Derrick Sam, J. Pooventhera Rajan, Ms R. Harishni, Hari Radhakrishnan, Ms Francy Victor, S. Manoharan Sundaram, V. Haribabu, K. Chandrasekaran, B. Raveendran, D. Prabhu Mukunth, M. Narasimha Bharathi, P. Arumugam, B. Syed abdul Wakeel, Ms S. Jecintha, Ms AAV partners, K.G. Raghunath, M.S. Kanmani Annamalai, K. Sankaranarayanan, Ms S. Vishnupriya, SP. Chidambaram, Abdul Rahman, S. Muthuvenkataraman, Ms G. Vardhini, N. Sudalaimuthu, S. Rajasekar, N. Prasad, N. Inbarajan, N. Sudalai Muthu, Ms Baby Jhon Pulickaparambil, S. Karunakar, B. Satish Kumar, A. Satheesh Murugan, R. Aravindan, R. Mohana Sundharam, D. Kanagasundaram, M.N. Bharathi, Advs., Sujit Ghosh, M. Aravind Subramaniam, Abdul Hameed, B. Syed Abdul, Vijay Narayan, Sr. Advs. & P. Rajkumar, Ad. for the Petitioner.
  • V. Prashanth Kiran, Mrs K. Vasanthamala, S.R. Sundar, Ms Amirtha Dinakaran, V. Pashanth Kiran, Govt. Advs., Rajendran Raghavan, K.S. Ramaswamy, Mrs Revathi Manivannan, R.P. Pragadish, A.P. Srinivas, Rajnish Pathiyil, K. Mohana Murali, T. Ramesh Kutty, B. Ramana Kumar, S.M. Deenadayalan, N. Dilipkumar, R. Nandakumar, R. Gowrishankar, R. Nandakmar, Sr. Standing Counsels, C. Harsha Raj, Special Govt. Pleader, ARL Sundaresan, Addl. Solicitor General, T.N.C. Kaushik, Addl. Govt. Pleader, S. Gurumoorthy, Sai Srujan Tayi, K. Mohanamurali, K. Ashok Kumar Ram, H. Velavadhas, Sr. Panel Counsels, Ms Pooja Jain, JSC, R. Subramaniyam, ACGSC, K. Govindarajan, DSGI, J. Alaguram Jothi, Paramasivam, M. Karthikeya Venkatachalapathy, Sr. Panel Counsel, P. Subbiah, CGSPC, G. Vidhya Maheswaran, Ms B. Deepa, T. Mahendran, CGSCs & T.N.C. Kavshik, Addl. Government Pleader for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner challenged ‘Notification No. 9/2023-Central Tax, dated 31-03-2023’ and ‘Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax, dated 28-12-2023’ issued under section 168A of the CGST Act, contending that they were arbitrary and invalid. It was submitted that section 73 of the CGST Act allows authorities to issue notice for tax or ITC dues not involving fraud within two years and nine months under section 73(2) and to pass order within three years under section 73(10), both reckoned from the due date of filing annual return. The Supreme Court, by order dated 10-01-2022 in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation [2022] 134 taxmann.com 307 (SC), excluded the period from 15-03-2020 to 28-02-2022 from computation of limitation. The petitioner contended that the impugned notifications, instead of extending the limitation, fixed specific outer dates for issuance of notice and order for financial years, which actually curtailed the limitation period otherwise available under section 73 and the Supreme Court’s order. It was further submitted that ‘Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax, dated 28-12-2023’ was issued before recommendations of the GST Council and based only on recommendations of the GIC. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court of Madras.

High Court Held

The High Court of Madras held that ‘Notification No. 9/2023-Central Tax, dated 31-03-2023’ and ‘Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax, dated 28-12-2023’ were illegal as they were based on an erroneous assumption of the limitation period and a misunderstanding of the Supreme Court’s order under Article 142 of the Constitution. It was held that section 168A of the CGST Act does not empower issuance of notifications that diminish or curtail the limitation otherwise available for issuance of notices and passing of orders under section 73. The Court declared the notifications unsustainable on the ground of arbitrariness, as they extinguished the vested right of action of authorities by reducing the limitation period. The notifications also stood vitiated for being issued without examining relevant materials. Further, ‘Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax, dated 28-12-2023’ was held illegal as it was made even before the recommendations of the GST Council and based on recommendations of the GIC. The decision was in favour of revenue.

List of Cases Reviewed

List of Cases Referred to

Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.

Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.

The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:

  • The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
  • All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
  • Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
  • Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
  • All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
  • The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
  • Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

«
»

Everything on Tax and Corporate Laws of India

To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com

Author: Taxmann

Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.

The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:

  • The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
  • All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
  • Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
  • Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
  • All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
  • The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
  • Font and size that's easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied