M/S Graziano Trasmissioni v. Goods And Services Tax And 5 Others

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 2(1); GST statutory provision - Section 3; GST statutory provision - Section 7; GST statutory provision - Section 8; GST statutory provision - Section 10; GST statutory provision - Section 12A; GST statutory provision - Section 20; GST statutory provision - Section 21; GST statutory provision - Section 22; GST statutory provision - Section 23; GST statutory provision - Section 25; GST statutory provision - Section 39

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: Challenge has arisen to Notification No. 09/2023-Central Tax (CGST) dated 31.3.2023 issued by the Government of India and Notification No. 515/XI-2-23-9 (47)/17-T.C.215-U.P.Act-1-2017-Order-(273)-2023 dated 24.4.2023 issued by the State Government under Section 168A of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Central Act’) and the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Act’) respectively, insofar those Notifications seek to extend the time granted to the Adjudicating Authorities to pass adjudication orders with reference to proceedings for the F.Y . 2017-18. That challenge is involved in the following writ petitions: Sl. No. Writ Tax Number Party Name Financial Year Operative disposition: The submission that the issuance of the impugned notifications are pre-judicial to the rights and interest of…
• Which factual, statutory and procedural conditions controlled the requested relief?
• How did the forum apply the governing provisions to the evidence and procedural history recorded in this case?

Material facts and procedural background

case to be the Counter Affidavit filed in their individual cases. Thus, pleadings have been exchanged between the parties, on deemed basis. 4. During the course of hearing, it was pointed out that other challenges are also involved in some of the other petitions. Thus reference has been made to challenge raised to adjudication proceedings/orders for F.Y . 201718, on other grounds including ground as to adjudication order exceeding the show cause notice; principles of natural justice having been violated; rectification/correction of GSTR-3B etc. Yet other petitions have laid challenge to similar Notifications issued for the F.Y . 2018-19. In those cases, legal grounds of challenge have been described to be different.

Another petition has been filed involving challenge to the validity of Section 168A of the Central Act. 5. In view of the varied challenge raised in some individual petitions, at the suggestion of the bar, we have confined the hearing (at present), to writ petitions involving challenge to Notification No. 09 of 2023 dated 31.03.2023 issued by the Central Government and Notification No. 515 issued by the State Government on 24.04.2023 (hereinafter collectively described as the time extension Notifications) issued for the F.Y . 2017-18. Petition raising challenge to validity of Section 168A has been segregated. Those may be heard later. Also, petitions involving challenge to the time extension Notifications relevant to the F.Y .

order could be passed upto 31 December 2021. Also, under Section 73(3) of the Central Act and the State Act, the mandatory notice preceding an adjudication order [contemplated under Section 73(10) of the Act], could be issued not later than three months prior to the last date on which the Adjudication Order may be passed. Therefore, for the F.Y . 2017-18 such notice could be issued not later than 30 September 2021. 7. It is a fact, F.Y . 2017-18 (July, 2017 to March, 2018) was the first year under the GST regime. It is a matter of common knowledge that the revenue authorities and the tax payers alike, faced numerous difficulties in complying the new law.

Also, correspondingly the time period for issuance of notice, by the Proper Officer (for that F.Y .), stood extended upto 08 November 2022. It is also a fact, just after the expiry of the last date for filing return for F.Y . 2017-18 expired on 07.2.2020, the country was hit by the first wave of the pandemic COVID-19, resulting in complete lockdown being declared, from 25 March 2020. 8. While the Parliament was not in session, the President promulgated Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as ‘TOLO’). It was published in the Gazette of India on 31.03.2020. In the first place, by virtue of Section 3 of TOLO, the time limits specified, prescribed or notified under specified Acts (under that Section) were relaxed.

Act were not included therein. Then, by Section 8 of TOLO, a new Section 168A was introduced to the Central Act, granting powers to the Central to issue appropriate notification, on the recommendations of the Goods and Service Tax Council (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Council’), to extend the time limit specified, prescribed nor notified under the Central Act (as the case may be) in respect to ‘actions’ that ‘cannot’ be ‘completed’ or ‘complied’, ‘due to force majeure’ circumstance . The Explanation to the new section explained the meaning of ‘ force majeure’. It is also a fact that TOLO was replaced with Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the TOLA’), enforced with effect from 31 March 2020.

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

Respondent :- Goods And Service Tax Council And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Punit Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Amit Mahajan,C.S.C.,Gopal Verma With Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 897 of 2024 Petitioner :- M/S Subhash Infraengineers Pvt.Ltd. Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Indra Deo Mishra,Pankaj Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.,Gopal Verma With Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 902 of 2024 Petitioner :- M/S Subhash Infraengineers Pvtltd Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Indra Deo Mishra,Pankaj Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.,Gopal Verma Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. Heard Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agarwal learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Suyash Agarwal, Sri Divyanshu Agarwal and Sri Vinayak Mittal, Sri Shambhu Chopra learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rajnish Tripathi, Sri Praveen Kumar, Sri Nishant Mishra, Sri Atul Gupta, Sri Abhinav Mehrotra, Sri Venkat Prasad Pasupaleti (through video conferencing) and Sri Ayush Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.P. Singh, learned ASGI assisted by Sri N.C. Gupta and Sri Gopal Verma, Sri Anant Tiwari, Sri O.P. Mishra, Sri K.J. Shukla, Sri Chandra Prakash Yadav and Sri Arvind Kumar Goswami learned counsel for the Union of India and Goods & Service Tax Council, Sri Gaurav Mahajan learned Senior Standing Counsel, Sri Amit Mahajan learned Senior Standing Counsel, Sri Krishna Agarwal learned Senior Standing Counsel and Sri Parv Agarwal learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, Sri Nimai Das, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel

with it. Once that temporary circumstance had passed inasmuch as COVID-19 pandemic and the lockdown arising therefrom were over, the power vested by the legislature under Section 168A of the Central Act and the State Act, could not be exercised. 58. Mr. Venkat Prasad Pasupaleti (through video conferencing) appearing along with Shri Shubham Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ-Tax No. 330 of 2024 (M/S Tata Projects Limited v. Union of India and 3 others) has made reference to different actions of scrutiny, issuance of DRC-01, filing of replies, submission of replies and issuance of show cause notices and replies thereto, all before the issuance of the impugned notifications.

In any case the present is not a case where no proceeding may have been initiated. However, admittedly the order dated 8.12.2023 passed in this case travels beyond the issue raised in the Show Cause Notice. To that extent, the order is wholly unsustainable. 60. Next, Shri Ayush Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ-Tax No. 437 of 2023 has also adopted the submissions advanced by the other counsel of the petitioner. In addition, he has laid emphasis on the letter written by the Secretary to Chief Secretaries of all the States

The words - "due to force majeure" i.e. due to COVID-19 would also include within the plain meaning the after effects that spring directly from the occurrence of the spread of the pandemic COVID-19. Thus, Shri Mahajan has resisted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners that the words - "due to force majeure" would refer to the period co-terminus with the spread of pandemic COVID-19. Since various Annual Returns had already been filed in the meantime and so to say life had moved on, multitude of transactions and work got piled in revenue offices. That piling of work and slow down of revenue activity was attributable directly to the COVID circumstance.

Revenue / respondent submissions

Accordingly, time extensions were granted for F.Y . 2017-18 up to 31.12.2023, for F.Y . 2018-19 up to 31.03.2024 and for F.Y . 2019-20 up to 30.06.20204. 109. Thus, in the context of a conditional legislative function exercised by the Central Government and the State Government on the recommendation made by its expert i.e., Council, we find it difficult to hold that there was no application of mind by the delegate in issuing the impugned Notifications. The material existed as has been discussed above. The application of mind is writ large on the face of the agenda and minutes relied by learned counsel for the petitioners and admitted to the respondents.

shown to exist, the Central Government and the State Government have exercised their conditional legislative function in accordance with law. No palpable illegality or arbitrariness has been shown to exist as may warrant any deeper examination by the Court. 111. Next, we have to examine, if that consideration was enough and if it satisfied any further test laid down in Section 168A of the Central Act and the State Act. Here, we are unable to accept the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that there were mere difficulties faced by the revenue authorities in conducting scrutiny and audit. The period 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 remains the darkest period of our recent past, arising after the second World War.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

Therefore, the time for making compliances was extended and relaxations were granted by the Government, from time to time. It is on record - vide Notification dated 03.2.2020 issued under Section 44 (as it then existed) read with Rule 80 of the Rules framed under the Central Act, the last date for filing Annual Return for the F.Y . 2017-18 was extended - for the State of Uttar Pradesh, till 07 February 2020. Similar Notification No. 509 dated 05.02.2020 was issued by the State Government under the State Act. Correspondingly by operation of law, the time limitation contemplated under Section 73(10) of the Central Act and the State Act stood extended upto 06 February 2023.

limitation for a limited period 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 only. Thus, according to him, in absence of any ' force majeure' circumstance existing on 31.03.2023, the exercise of power by the Central Government and the State Government to extend the limitation to frame the adjudication order for F.Y . 2017-18 upto 31.12.2023, did not exist. The exercise of power is patently ultra vires the Act. 17. Here, he has also referred to Clause 5 of Circular dated 20.07.2021 to submit that the CBIC itself was cognizant of the order passed by the Supreme Court dated 27.04.2021. Therefore, it was the shared understanding of the executive authorities that the COVID-19 circumstance had come to an end on 28.02.2022.

exist on the date of issuance of the impugned notifications i.e. 30.3.2023 and 24.4.2023. Therefore, the exercise of the power is perverse. 25. Second, uniquely he would submit, the impugned notifications issued subsequent to the pandemic are prejudicial to the rights and interests of the tax-payers because they exposed the tax-payers to the consequences of show-cause notices, adjudication orders, recoveries and prosecutions etc. wholly outside the period of limitation prescribed by the principal legislature. Relying on State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh & Anr., AIR (2020) SC 5215 , he would submit, the issuance of the impugned notifications has caused prejudice to the petitioners and that procedural or substantive protection granted by the principal legislature by incorporating strict conditions under Section 168A has been diluted and thus abused.

In the present case, that function has been circumscribed by the conditions enumerated under Section 168A of the Act. Therefore, unless the 'force majeure' circumstance (of continuance of COVID-19) was a fact in existence, the primary legislative function cannot be seen to be validly exercised by the delegate - either the Central Government or the State Government. Reliance has been placed

While the Parliament and the State legislature had plenary powers to legislate, yet, the delegate may only offer strict compliance to the limited power vested on it. Unless the pre-condition for exercise of that power is shown to exist, the action taken by the delegate would remain an act of excess and therefore ultra vires of the principal enactments. 29. Again uniquely, Sri Shambhu Chopra has also invoked principle of violation of doctrine of public trust/public interest. Referring to Tata Housing Development Company Ltd. Vs. Aalok Jagga & Ors., (2020) 15 SCC 784 , he would submit, though the traditional scope to apply the doctrine of public trust was confined environmental issues, at the same time the doctrine now stands extended to other spheres as well.

Having laid that premise, he would proceed to submit, therefore, the recommendation of the Council must be seen to have considered and identified actions that were not complied or which could not be complied within the pre-existing prescription of time, that too for 'force majeure' circumstance existing. In the present facts, according to him, that consideration is completely lacking rather, it is absent.

Operative decision and relief

case, the in context of delegated legislation arising under Section 168A of the Act, the Central Government and the State Government had to offer independent application of mind to the existence of 'force majeure' circumstance. In the present case, contrary to that, both the Central Government and the State Government have offered mechanical compliance to the recommendation of the Council. 21. Further, it has been submitted, in face of the plain language of Section 168A of the Central Act and the State Act, the burden to establish the existence of 'force majeure' circumstance remained undischarged on the Central Government and the State Government. Neither in the impugned notifications nor in the recommendation of the Council nor in the report of the Law Committee nor through the Counter Affidavit filed in these petitions, any fact has been shown to exist as may have allowed the delegated legislative body to act under Section 168A of the Central Act or the State Act.

This may interalia include disposal of application for refund, application for revocation of cancellation of registration, adjudication proceedings of demand notices, etc. Similarly, appeals which are filed and are pending, can continue to be heard and disposed off and the same will be governed by those extensions of time granted by the statutes or notifications, if any. (c) Appeals by taxpayers/tax authorities against any quasijudicial order :- Wherever any appeal is required to be filed before Joint/Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Commissioner (Appeals), Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, Tribunal and various courts against any quasi-judicial order or where a proceeding for revision or rectification of any order is required to be undertaken, the time line for the same would stand extended as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order.

258. Therefore, while adjudging the illegality of the impugned notification, we would have to examine on the basis as to whether the objectives for which it was enacted has nexus with the decision taken or not. If the impugned notification had a nexus with the objectives to be achieved, then, merely because some citizens have suffered through hardships would not be a ground to hold the impugned notification to be bad in law. 138. Seen in that light the decisions cited by learned counsel for the petitioners are found to be distinguished. The writ petitions challenging the issuance of the impugned notifications must fail. Hearing of all cases where adjudication proceedings are pending may recommence and be concluded, after excluding the duration of stay of the extended limitation to frame the adjudication order. Wherever adjudication orders have been passed and recovery stayed by this Court, the petitioners shall have 45 days from today to file appropriate appeals. 139. The writ petitions are thus dismissed. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 31.5.2024 Faraz//Prakhar/SA/Abhilash/A. Gautam (Donadi Ramesh, J.) (S. D. Singh, J.)

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with M/S Graziano Trasmissioni v. Goods And Services Tax And 5 Others concerns issue and context: challenge has arisen to notification no. 09/2023-central tax (cgst) dated 31.3.2023 issued by the government of india and notification no. 515/xi-2-23-9 (47)/17-t.c.215-u.p.act-1-2017-order-(273)-2023 dated 24.4.2023 issued by the state government under section 168a of the central goods and service tax act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the central act’) and the u.p. goods and service tax act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the state act’) respectively, insofar those notifications seek to extend the time granted to the adjudicating authorities to pass adjudication orders with reference to proceedings for the f.y . 2017-18. that challenge is involved in the following writ petitions: sl. no. writ tax number party name financial year operative disposition: the submission that the issuance of the impugned notifications are pre-judicial to the rights and interest of… The proposition cannot be separated from the judgment’s facts, the governing statutory version, the forum’s jurisdiction, and the exact relief recorded in WRIT TAX No. - 1256 of 2023.

For working-paper purposes, the decision should be cited only after matching the material facts and reading the passages under the judgment-grounded record above. The editorial outcome label “Disposed” is a navigation aid; it does not replace the operative order or explain every issue in a multi-issue case.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant when a file raises the same central question identified in the source headnote: Issue and context: Challenge has arisen to Notification No. 09/2023-Central Tax (CGST) dated 31.3.2023 issued by the Government of India and Notification No. 515/XI-2-23-9 (47)/17-T.C.215-U.P.Act-1-2017-Order-(273)-2023 dated 24.4.2023 issued by the State Government under Section 168A of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Central Act’) and the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Act’) respectively, insofar those Notifications seek to extend the time granted to the Adjudicating Authorities to pass adjudication orders with reference to proceedings for the F.Y . 2017-18. That challenge is involved in the following writ petitions: Sl. No. Writ Tax Number Party Name Financial Year Operative disposition: The submission that the issuance of the impugned notifications are pre-judicial to the rights and interest of… Its practical value lies in the way the Allahabad High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 2(1); GST statutory provision - Section 3; GST statutory provision - Section 7; GST statutory provision - Section 8; GST statutory provision - Section 10; GST statutory provision - Section 12A; GST statutory provision - Section 20; GST statutory provision - Section 21; GST statutory provision - Section 22; GST statutory provision - Section 23; GST statutory provision - Section 25; GST statutory provision - Section 39—to the procedural posture and evidence before it.

The authority level is High Court. That affects persuasive or binding weight, but authority level alone is never enough. Territorial jurisdiction, statutory period, the identity of the challenged order, and later appellate treatment must all be checked before the case is used in advice, a submission, or litigation strategy.

Practitioner action points

• Begin with the complete judgment and mark the paragraphs supporting the exact proposition relied upon.
• Match the statutory version of GST statutory provision - Section 2(1); GST statutory provision - Section 3; GST statutory provision - Section 7; GST statutory provision - Section 8; GST statutory provision - Section 10; GST statutory provision - Section 12A; GST statutory provision - Section 20; GST statutory provision - Section 21; GST statutory provision - Section 22; GST statutory provision - Section 23; GST statutory provision - Section 25; GST statutory provision - Section 39 and the decision date 2024-05-31; do not assume the current text is identical.
• Compare the notice, assessment, appeal or other procedural sequence with the chronology recorded in this case.
• Verify the stated later-history status and any review, appeal, SLP, curative or rectification proceedings before citation.
• Record why the client’s evidence is materially similar, and also record any fact capable of distinguishing the result.

Does this case match your facts?

Detailed reliance and distinction analysis

Identity check. Confirm that the cited cause title is M/S Graziano Trasmissioni v. Goods And Services Tax And 5 Others, the proceeding is WRIT TAX No. - 1256 of 2023, and the decision is dated 2024-05-31. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.; Donadi Ramesh,J.. A later order by another bench, a larger bench, or a higher forum may alter the weight or interpretation of the proposition.

Provision check. The source associates the dispute with GST statutory provision - Section 2(1); GST statutory provision - Section 3; GST statutory provision - Section 7; GST statutory provision - Section 8; GST statutory provision - Section 10; GST statutory provision - Section 12A; GST statutory provision - Section 20; GST statutory provision - Section 21; GST statutory provision - Section 22; GST statutory provision - Section 23; GST statutory provision - Section 25; GST statutory provision - Section 39. The practitioner should place the historical statutory text next to the current text and identify every amendment, proviso, explanation, rule or notification that could change the analysis.

Fact check. The source issue is not a free-standing abstract rule. It arises from the concrete record summarized above. A reliable application note should list the common facts, the different facts, and whether each difference affects jurisdiction, admissibility, limitation, burden, computation or relief.

Remedy check. The recorded result is Disposed. Where a matter is remanded, set aside, partly allowed, or disposed with directions, the exact operative language is more important than a binary winner/loser label.

History check. The current closure state is REVIEW_APPEAL_SLP_SUBSEQUENT_TREATMENT_CHECK_PENDING. If that state is pending, the page does not assert that no later case exists. It means the check remains open and must be completed at the point of professional reliance.

Section / provision impact

• GST statutory provision - Section 2(1) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 3 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 7 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 8 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 10 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 12A — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 20 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 21 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 22 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 23 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 25 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 39 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• M/s SA Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Union of India and Others — Allahabad High Court · Disposed
• VSA TRADING PVT LTD v. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CGST AND ANR — Delhi High Court · Disposed
• M/s R. Gupta Metal Store through Proprietor Mahesh Chand Gupta v. Commissioner, CGST Delhi North — Delhi High Court · Disposed
• M/S MOMS CRADLE PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. — Delhi High Court · Disposed

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 692 judgments
• Explore Appeals & Limitation

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_EXACT_SANITIZED_MIRROR · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY