Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Tvl.Robert Clarenle Shine Medicals, a proprietary concern of V. Robert Clarence (GSTIN 33AFFPR2005E1Z1) based in Kanniyakumari, Tamil Nadu, filed two connected writ petitions before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging assessment orders dated 25.11.2023 (for AY 2017-18) and 26.12.2023 (for AY 2019-20) passed by the State Tax Officer, Thuckalay-2 Assessment Circle (first respondent). The petitions also 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, 2017, along with the corresponding State notification G.O.Ms.No.41 dated 05.04.2023, as ultra vires and impermissibly retrospective. The petitions were filed well after the assessment orders, and the petitioner had not replied to the show-cause notices that preceded them.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether assessment orders passed relying on the limitation-extension conferred by Notification Nos.09/2023 and 56/2023 (issued under Section 168A CGST Act) can be sustained once those notifications have themselves been held to be vitiated.
  2. Whether such orders should be quashed and remitted despite the belated filing of the writ petitions and non-filing of a reply to the show-cause notices.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Notification Nos.09/2023 and 56/2023-Central Tax were ultra vires Section 168A of the CGST Act and could not operate retrospectively.
  • The notifications, and the consequential assessment orders passed under their cover, violated Articles 14, 246A and 265 of the Constitution of India.
  • Sought quashing of both impugned assessment orders along with the enabling notifications and State G.O.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The State and Union respondents defended the notifications and the assessment orders, and the Court noted that the petitioner had neither replied to the pre-assessment notices nor approached the Court within a reasonable time.
  • The Court observed that, ordinarily, it may have relegated the petitioner to filing a belated reply given this delay and the Court's consistent prior view.

Court Order / Findings

  • Relied on the detailed ruling of the Principal Bench of the Madras High Court in M/s.Tata Play Limited vs. Union of India (2025 (7) TMI 772), which had quashed Notification Nos.9 and 56 of 2023 as vitiated and illegal for curtailing the limitation-exclusion benefit available under the Supreme Court's Article 142 order dated 10.01.2022, for proceeding on an erroneous assumption of law, and, for Notification 56/2023, for having been issued without a valid prior recommendation of the GST Council (relying instead on GIC recommendations).
  • Noted that Tata Play Limited had already been followed in W.P.(MD)No.19943 of 2025 dated 23.07.2025.
  • Applying the same ratio, quashed both impugned assessment orders and remitted the matters to the respondents to pass fresh orders on merits.
  • Clarified that the respondents remain at liberty to proceed further keeping in view the Supreme Court's interim order in HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV vs. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (SLP No.4240 of 2025), arising from a Telangana High Court order. No costs.

Important Clarification

  • Notifications No.09/2023 and 56/2023-Central Tax, issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act to extend limitation for passing assessment/adjudication orders, have been held vitiated as they curtail the Supreme Court's COVID-period limitation exclusion and, for Notification 56/2023, as it lacked a valid prior GST Council recommendation.
  • Assessment orders passed relying on these notifications are liable to be quashed and remitted for fresh adjudication on merits -- and this benefit extends even to assessees who approached the writ court belatedly and had not replied to the show-cause notice, once the enabling notifications themselves are struck down.

Sections Involved

  • Section 168A, CGST Act, 2017 -- empowers the Government to extend time limits in special circumstances on GST Council recommendation; held to have been misapplied through Notifications 09/2023 and 56/2023.
  • Article 226, Constitution of India -- writ jurisdiction invoked to challenge the assessment orders and enabling notifications.

Decision – In Favour of

In favour of the Assessee: both impugned assessment orders were quashed and remitted for fresh orders on merits, following the binding Tata Play Limited ruling that invalidated the underlying limitation-extension notifications.

Case Details

Court: Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court
Case No.: W.P.(MD)Nos.21858 and 21859 of 2025 with W.M.P.(MD)Nos.16975, 16976, 17011 and 17014 of 2025
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Saravanan
Date of Order: 12.08.2025

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.