Facts of the Case

A batch of eight connected writ petitions, led by Eagle Trans Shipping and Logistics India Pvt Ltd along with Khetan Exports, Dharampal Premchand Ltd, Sojitz Corporation, New India Contractors and Developers, Indus Towers Ltd, M/s Rakesh Sons and Hazari Bagh Builders Pvt Ltd, challenged adjudication orders passed pursuant to show cause notices under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017. The common thread was a challenge to notifications issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017, which extended limitation periods for issuing such notices and orders during the COVID period, and to Section 168 itself. All petitioners had already filed replies and undergone adjudication before approaching the Rajasthan High Court.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the High Court should adjudicate the vires of notifications issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act while an identical question is pending before the Supreme Court.
  2. Whether petitioners who have already been adjudicated under Section 73 should be relegated to the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107.
  3. How limitation for filing a fresh appeal should be treated given the pendency of the writ petitions.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Argued that the notifications extending limitation under Section 168A were issued without the mandatory GST Council recommendation and were therefore ultra vires.
  • Contended that the consequent Section 73 orders, being founded on a limitation extension of doubtful validity, were themselves vitiated and liable to be set aside.
  • Sought interim and final relief restraining recovery pending resolution of the vires challenge.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The State and Union respondents pointed to the availability of an efficacious statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Acts against the adjudication orders.
  • Submitted that the validity of Section 168A notifications was already sub judice before the Supreme Court in a pending Special Leave Petition, and no separate adjudication was warranted at the High Court stage.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Division Bench declined to interfere with the impugned orders on merits, noting that a statutory remedy of appeal was available under Section 107 of the CGST/SGST/DGST Acts.
  • Held that the question of validity of the Section 168A notification and of Section 168 itself was already pending before the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.4240/2025, and the outcome of the impugned orders on that count would abide by the Apex Court's ruling.
  • Left it open to the petitioners to either make submissions before the Supreme Court or await its final adjudication, drawing support from a similar view of the Delhi High Court.
  • Directed that if an appeal is preferred within one month, it would be examined purely on merits without regard to the question of limitation.

Important Clarification

  • Where the validity of a limitation-extension notification under Section 168A is already before the Supreme Court, High Courts will generally decline to give an independent ruling and instead relegate assessees to statutory appeal, preserving their right to rely on the eventual Supreme Court outcome.
  • Assessees challenging Section 73 orders on the Section 168A ground do not lose that argument by pursuing a Section 107 appeal — the appellate order will itself be governed by the Supreme Court's ultimate decision on the notification's validity.

Sections Involved

  • Section 73, CGST Act, 2017 – provides for determination of tax not paid or short paid, other than by reason of fraud.
  • Section 168A, CGST Act, 2017 – empowers the Government, on GST Council recommendation, to extend time limits during force majeure.
  • Section 107, CGST Act, 2017 – provides the statutory first-appeal remedy against adjudication orders.

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of with directions, in part in favour of the department procedurally — the assessees were relegated to statutory appeal without interference on the merits of the Section 73 orders, but with the substantive Section 168A vires question kept alive pending the Supreme Court's ruling and a concession on limitation for filing appeal.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur
  • Case No.: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16649/2024 (and connected petitions)
  • Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeet Purohit
  • Date of Order: 22 August 2025

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.