Case Details
-
Case Title: Ozone Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Union of India and another
-
Court: High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla
-
Petition Number: CWP No. 10623 of 2025
-
Date of Judgement: 04.07.2025
-
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja
-
Category of Dispute: Extension of time limit for adjudication under Section 73 – validity of Section 168A and related Notifications
-
Relevant Sections:
-
Section 73(9) and 73(10) of the CGST Act, 2017
-
Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017 (inserted by Section 7 of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020)
-
Facts (para 2, 3)
Ozone Pharmaceuticals Ltd. challenged Section 7 of the 2020 Relaxation Act by which Section 168A was inserted in the CGST Act, contending it was beyond legislative competence. The petitioner further assailed Notification No. 9/2023 dated 31.03.2023 and Notification No. 56/2023 dated 28.12.2023, whereby the Government extended the time limit for passing orders under Section 73(9) for FY 2018–19. The petitioner also sought quashing of the appellate order dated 12.03.2025 that had upheld a demand without cogent reasoning.
Questions before the Court (para 2, 3)
-
Whether Section 168A of the CGST Act, inserted via Section 7 of the 2020 Act, is ultra vires?
-
Whether the Government validly exercised power to extend limitation for passing adjudication orders under Section 73 by issuing Notifications No. 9/2023 and 56/2023?
-
Whether the impugned appellate order sustaining demand is sustainable in light of the above legal issues?
Observations (para 3, 4)
The Court noted that identical issues regarding the legality of Section 168A and the extension notifications are pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 4240 of 2025 (M/s HCC-Sew-MEIL-AAG-JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors.). The Supreme Court on 21.02.2025 had framed the precise issue: whether time for adjudication under Section 73 for FY 2019–20 could be extended via Section 168A notifications. The Apex Court also noted divergent High Court rulings on the matter.
Given the pendency, the Himachal Pradesh High Court held it prudent, in judicial discipline, not to render findings on vires of Section 168A or the impugned notifications.
Judgement (para 4, 5, 6)
The High Court disposed of the writ by directing that the outcome of the Supreme Court’s ruling will govern the present petition. Importantly, the Court restrained the respondents from taking any coercive recovery steps against the petitioner based on the impugned appellate order until the Supreme Court delivers its verdict.
Case Law Reference Table
| Case | Court | Issue | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| M/s HCC-Sew-MEIL-AAG-JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. (SLP C No. 4240 of 2025) | Supreme Court | Validity of extension of limitation via Section 168A Notifications under GST | Pending – SC has admitted issue noting cleavage of opinion across High Courts |
Between Fine Lines
For businesses, this judgment means that ongoing recovery proceedings based on extended timelines under Section 73 are effectively on hold until the Supreme Court settles the legality of Section 168A and related extension notifications. Companies facing similar demands can rely on this precedent to seek interim protection from coercive steps.
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”
