Facts of the Case

Tvl.S.S.R. Arts challenged an assessment order dated 21.12.2023 for assessment years 2017-18 to 2020-21 passed under provisions of the CGST Act, along with the underlying Notification No.09/2023-Central Tax and Notification No.56/2023-Central Tax issued under Section 168A extending the limitation for adjudication. The writ petition was filed long after the assessment order, and it was also undisputed that the petitioner had not replied to the notices preceding the order. Ordinarily, this would have led the Court to intervene only on the standard liberty terms usually applied in delayed cases; however, a detailed intervening ruling on the underlying notifications changed the analysis.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the assessment order should be quashed in light of the Madras High Court's own subsequent detailed ruling in Tata Play Limited quashing Notification Nos. 9 and 56 of 2023 issued under Section 168A.
  2. What relief follows for a bank account already attached in enforcement of the demand.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Challenged the notifications issued under Section 168A as ultra vires, incapable of retrospective application, and violative of Article 14, 246A and 265 of the Constitution, along with the consequential assessment order.
  • Submitted that the petitioner's bank account had been attached and sought its release.

Respondent's Arguments

  • No specific rebuttal is recorded distinguishing the case from the subsequently rendered Tata Play Limited ruling of the Principal Bench.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court noted that a detailed batch ruling of the Principal Bench in M/s.Tata Play Limited v. Union of India (2025 (7) TMI 772) had since quashed Notification Nos. 9 and 56 of 2023, holding they impermissibly diminished the limitation otherwise available under the Supreme Court's Article 142 order, were issued on an erroneous assumption of law, and (for Notification 56) preceded actual GST Council recommendation — a ruling since followed in several other matters.
  • Applying Tata Play, the Court quashed the impugned assessment order and remanded the matter for a fresh order on merits, directing that the second respondent cannot club multiple assessment years into one order and must pass a separate order for each assessment year.
  • The Department was left free to proceed further in light of the interim order of the Supreme Court in the pending SLP No.4240/2025 (HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV) on the same notifications.
  • Noting the petitioner's bank account had been attached, the Court directed the attachment to be lifted forthwith and without delay.

Important Clarification

  • Following the Tata Play Limited ruling, assessment orders passed under the limitation extended by Notification Nos. 9 and 56 of 2023 (issued under Section 168A) are liable to be quashed even where the assessee filed no reply and approached the Court belatedly — the notification's own invalidity outweighs those delay/default factors.
  • Where an order is quashed on this basis and multiple assessment years had been bunched together, the Department must issue separate orders for each assessment year on remand.

Sections Involved

  • Section 168A, CGST Act, 2017 — power to extend time limits, under which the quashed notifications were issued.
  • Form GST DRC-13 — bank attachment for recovery, ordered released.

Decision – In Favour of

The order is in favour of the Assessee. The assessment order was quashed and the bank attachment lifted, with a fresh, year-wise assessment remanded, subject to the outcome of the pending Supreme Court SLP.

Case Details

Court: Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Case No.: W.P.(MD) No. 28598 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos. 22190 and 22191 of 2025
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.R. Swaminathan
Date of Order: 14th October, 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.