Madras HC Quashes Section 168A Notifications What It Means for GST Cases
In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court has struck down notifications issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act, which extended the time limit for adjudication of GST proceedings related to FY 2017–18, 2018–19, and 2019–20.
This judgment—MS TATA PLAY LIMITED v. Union of India [WP/17184/2024]—has far-reaching implications for taxpayers facing adjudication proceedings based on these now-quashed extensions.
What Is Section 168A of CGST Act?
Section 168A empowers the government to extend time limits for various actions under the GST law in case of force majeure situations like the COVID-19 pandemic.
✅ This section was widely used during the pandemic to push adjudication timelines forward.
❌ However, the Madras HC has now ruled that such blanket extensions were not legally sustainable for adjudication purposes.
Key Highlights of the Judgment
| Aspect | Court’s Observations |
|---|---|
| Validity of 168A Notifications | Declared ultra vires (beyond legal power) |
| Adjudication Orders | Set aside due to reliance on invalid notifications |
| Next Step | Fresh de-novo assessment proceedings directed |
| Assessee’s Arguments | Mostly accepted, except overlap with SC COVID orders |
| Legal Reasoning | Extension ≠ Exclusion — taxing statutes to be strictly interpreted |
What This Means for You
- If you received a SCN or adjudication order for FY 2017–20, it may now be invalid if it was issued relying on these 168A notifications.
- Taxpayers may get a fresh chance to argue their case during de-novo adjudication.
- GST officers must now issue fresh show-cause notices (if still within time), or drop proceedings altogether.
Expert Tip: Watch Out for Limitation Period
The ruling reinforces that “extension” of time under Section 168A doesn’t override the basic statutory time limits under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act.
💡 Pro Tip: Always verify whether your SCN or order was issued within proper timelines. If not, consider filing for relief based on this judgment.
Legal Basis for the Judgment
- CGST Act, 2017 – Section 168A
- Supreme Court Order – Suo Moto Writ (Civil) No. 3/2020 (COVID time exclusion clarified)
- Madras HC Case:
MS TATA PLAY LIMITED v. UOI & Others – WP No. 17184 of 2024
(Full judgment awaited at hcmadras.tn.nic.in)
FAQs: Section 168A and the Madras HC Verdict
Q1. Does this mean all adjudication orders from 2017–2020 are void?
Only those relying on Section 168A extensions, as per this HC ruling.
Q2. Can the department reissue notices?
Yes, but only if within the original limitation period. Otherwise, proceedings lapse.
Q3. Is this applicable pan-India?
Currently binding in Tamil Nadu, but persuasive in other states until a conflicting ruling emerges.
Summary
Madras HC strikes down GST Section 168A notifications used to extend adjudication timelines for FY 2017–20, ruling them invalid. Orders passed relying on these are void, and fresh assessments are needed. Big relief for assessees caught in delayed GST proceedings.
Final Thoughts
This judgment is a turning point in GST litigation, signaling that procedural safeguards and limitation periods cannot be diluted via administrative notifications. Taxpayers should immediately consult their consultants if they’ve received adjudication notices post-COVID based on such extensions.