Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Tvl Voylla Fashions Private Limited, GSTIN 33AADCV8345F1ZB, challenged Notification No. 09/2023-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 to extend limitation for passing assessment orders, along with the consequential assessment order dated 28.08.2024 for assessment year 2019-20 passed against the petitioner. The challenge was that the notifications acted retrospectively, curtailed the limitation otherwise available under the Supreme Court's Article 142 order excluding the COVID period, and were issued without valid GST Council recommendation as mandated by Section 168A, making them ultra vires Articles 14, 246A and 265 of the Constitution before the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether Notification Nos. 9/2023 and 56/2023-Central Tax, issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act to extend limitation, are valid.
  2. Whether these notifications improperly curtailed the limitation benefit available under the Supreme Court's Article 142 order excluding the COVID-19 period.
  3. Whether the consequential assessment order passed relying on the extended limitation should be set aside along with the notifications.
  4. What procedural safeguards should govern re-adjudication once the notifications are held vitiated.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Notification No. 56/2023 diminished the limitation otherwise available under the Supreme Court's Article 142 order, contrary to the very object of Section 168A, and was issued on an erroneous assumption of the limitation position.
  • The notification extinguished the Department's own vested right of action by diminishing limitation, suffering from the vice of arbitrariness, and was issued even before the GST Council's recommendation, and on the basis of GIC recommendations that cannot substitute for a full Council recommendation.
  • The consequential assessment order dated 28.08.2024, passed relying on the extended limitation under these vitiated notifications, was equally unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Additional Government Pleader accepted notice and did not dispute that the issue was squarely covered by the Court's own common order dated 12.06.2025 in W.P.Nos.17184 of 2024 and connected batch matters.

Court Order / Findings

  • Following its own batch ruling, the Court held that Notification Nos. 9 and 56 of 2023-Central Tax stand vitiated and illegal for want of proper prior GST Council recommendation and for improperly curtailing the Article 142 limitation benefit.
  • A limitation-extending notification under Section 168A that is issued without a genuine prior recommendation of the GST Council, or that diminishes limitation otherwise available under a binding Supreme Court order, is arbitrary and illegal, and any assessment order passed relying on such a notification cannot survive independently.
  • The consequential order dated 28.08.2024 was set aside, and the petitioner was directed to treat the impugned order as a show cause notice and submit objections within eight weeks, whereafter the authorities were to pass fresh orders after affording a hearing.

Important Clarification

  • Notification Nos. 9/2023 and 56/2023-Central Tax, extending time limits for passing GST assessment orders under Section 168A, have been held vitiated and illegal by the Madras High Court for procedural infirmities in the recommendation process.
  • Where such a foundational notification is invalidated, the consequential assessment order is not simply quashed outright but is treated as a fresh show cause notice, preserving the Department's opportunity to re-adjudicate lawfully.
  • This ruling forms part of a nationwide cleavage of judicial opinion on Notification 56/2023, with different High Courts taking divergent views and the issue pending before the Supreme Court in related litigation.

Sections Involved

  • Section 168A, CGST Act, 2017 – empowers the Government, on GST Council recommendation, to extend time limits in special circumstances such as force majeure.
  • Section 73, CGST Act, 2017 – determination of tax not paid, under which the consequential assessment order was passed.
  • Articles 14, 246A and 265, Constitution of India – grounds of constitutional challenge to the impugned notifications.

Decision – In Favour of

The decision favours the assessee on the notification challenge, though the outcome is a remand: the impugned notifications and consequential order were set aside, with the petitioner directed to respond afresh to the authorities.

Case Details

Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court; W.P.(MD)No.36017 of 2025 with W.M.P.(MD)No.28625 and 28526 of 2025; Tvl Voylla Fashions Private Limited vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), Madurai and Others; Coram: Justice Krishnan Ramasamy; Decided on 17.12.2025.

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.