The Bombay High Court has admitted a writ petition challenging the validity of Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax and the corresponding State Tax notification, which extended the time limit available to GST authorities for issuing adjudication and recovery orders under Section 73 of the CGST and SGST Acts. 

The bench of Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Advait M. Sethna has granted interim protection to the petitioner by restraining authorities from taking coercive action until the next hearing. 

BUY NOW: 500+ CGST Notifications (2017–2025) | Clickable Index E-Magazine | Hyperlinked Original PDFs

The case assumes significance because several High Courts across the country have already expressed reservations regarding the legality of these notifications, with some courts declaring them ultra vires the GST law. However, the controversy has now reached the Supreme Court, where the final determination on the validity of the extensions remains pending.

Section 73 of the CGST Act governs the determination of tax not paid, short paid, erroneously refunded, or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilized in cases not involving fraud, suppression, or wilful misstatement. The provision prescribes specific timelines within which tax authorities must issue adjudication orders.

To overcome the limitation difficulties faced by tax authorities, the Government issued Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax and corresponding State Tax notifications extending the statutory deadline for passing orders under Section 73.

Taxpayers across India challenged these notifications on the ground that the executive cannot extend limitation periods prescribed by Parliament beyond what is expressly authorized under the GST law. According to the petitioners, the notifications effectively amend substantive statutory provisions through delegated legislation, which is impermissible.

The petitioner challenged both the Central and State GST notifications before the Bombay High Court.

Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that coordinate benches of the Bombay High Court had already admitted similar petitions raising identical questions of law. Reliance was placed on an earlier order dated 16 April 2025 in a connected matter where the Court had entertained the challenge. 

After hearing the parties, the Division Bench comprising Justices Suman Shyam and Advait M. Sethna issued Rule, directed the respondents to file their replies, and granted interim protection to the petitioner. The Court specifically ordered that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner until the next date of hearing. 

The litigation raises an important constitutional and statutory issue concerning the limits of delegated legislation under the GST regime.

The central question is whether the Government, through notifications, can enlarge limitation periods prescribed under Section 73 when the parent statute itself does not expressly authorize such extensions beyond a particular framework.

Taxpayers contend that limitation provisions create substantive rights and liabilities and therefore cannot be altered through executive notifications. Revenue authorities, on the other hand, have defended the notifications by relying on the powers available under the GST framework and extraordinary circumstances that necessitated extension of statutory timelines.

The validity of Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax has generated substantial litigation across various High Courts. While certain courts have struck down the extensions as being beyond statutory authority, other matters continue to remain pending.

With the issue now under consideration before the Supreme Court, the final verdict is expected to have far-reaching consequences for thousands of Section 73 proceedings initiated across the country pursuant to the extended timelines.

If the Supreme Court ultimately invalidates the notifications, numerous adjudication orders passed after expiry of the original statutory limitation period may become vulnerable to challenge. Conversely, if the notifications are upheld, tax authorities would retain the benefit of the extended time window for completing pending proceedings.

For the time being, the Bombay High Court’s order provides temporary relief to the petitioner by preventing coercive recovery measures while the legality of the notifications is examined. The matter will now proceed after the filing of replies by the respondents, with the larger question of the validity of the GST limitation extensions continuing to await authoritative determination by the Supreme Court. 

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 23 June, 2026