The Madras High Court has quashed the extension Notification No. 09/2023 and Notification No. 56/2023 issued by the Central Government under Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017.
The bench of Justice Mohammed Shaffiq while hearing a large batch of writ petitions led by Tata Play Limited and over 300 other petitioners—including major corporations, MSMEs, and individual taxpayers held the Notification Nos.9 and 56 of 2023 as vitiated and illegal for various reasons.
Firstly, Notification Nos.9 and 56 of 2023 results in diminishing / curtailing the limitation which was otherwise available in view of the order of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of Constitution, and thus contrary to the object of Section 168A of CGST Act.
Secondly, it proceeds on an erroneous assumption of the limitation available and a misconception as to the scope and effect of the order of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of Constitution. The notification made on an erroneous assumption of the position in law is unsustainable on the ground of being arbitrary.
Thirdly, the notification results in extinguishing vested right of action with the authorities under CGST Act by diminishing the limitation thus suffers from the vice of arbitrariness.
Fourthly, the notification is issued on the basis of recommendation made without examining relevant materials and thus stands vitiated.
Fifthly, in addition to the above reasons, impugned notification No.56/2023 is made even prior to the recommendations of the GST Council, failure to comply with the statutory mandate renders the notification illegal.
Lastly, the notification no.56/2023 is issued on the basis of the recommendations of GIC which cannot be a substitute for GST Council and thus stands vitiated.
A large batch of writ petitions led by Tata Play Limited and over 300 other petitioners—including major corporations, MSMEs, and individual taxpayers—has been filed before the Madras High Court challenging the constitutional validity of specific Goods and Services Tax (GST) notifications issued by both the Central and Tamil Nadu State Governments.
The core issue arises from Notification No. 09/2023 and Notification No. 56/2023 issued by the Central Government under Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017, and their respective counterparts under the TNGST Act by the State of Tamil Nadu. The petitioners contend that these notifications, which extend the time limits for issuing orders under GST law, are ultra vires, arbitrary, and without legal sanction.
Tata Play Limited, represented through its Chennai office, argues in its plea that Section 168A does not authorize the government to issue such blanket extensions beyond a reasonable time. Several other entities—including DSV Air and Sea Pvt. Ltd., Dhandapani Spinning Mills Ltd., and Indus Towers Ltd.—echoed similar grievances, challenging both the substantive validity of the notifications and consequential demand orders passed under extended timelines.
Some of the common grounds cited by the petitioners include violation of Article 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India. The retrospective application of timelines leading to unjust tax demands for the assessment years as early as 2017–18. Lack of legislative competence under Section 168A to override statutory limitation periods.
In many of the cases, petitioners also sought to quash adjudication orders and demand recovery notices issued by GST authorities, arguing that they flowed directly from these impugned notifications.
The court quashed Notification Nos. 9 and 56 of 2023 issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act, holding them as vitiated and unsustainable on multiple grounds.
Case Details
Case Title: Ms Tata Play Limited Versus UOI
Case No.: W.P.No. 17184 of 2024
Date: 12.06.2025
Read More: Mumbai Customs Seizes Hydroponic Weed Worth ₹33.35 Crore in Major Drug Bust at Airport
- Lithium-Ion Batteries for Mobile Phones Attract 12% IGST, Not 28%: CESTAT - July 11, 2025
- Bombay High Court Refuses to Order Retrospective Customs Duty Correction Over Alleged Tariff Error - July 11, 2025
- Refund from Electronic Cash Ledger Cannot Be Arbitrarily Withheld: Supreme Court Dismisses Centre’s Plea - July 11, 2025
