Key take aways from the judgement
- Delegated Legislation Requires Strict Scrutiny
- The notifications issued under Section 168A are classified as delegated legislation and not conditional legislation.
- The Court reiterated that any deviation from statutory limitation must be interpreted strictly and narrowly
2. Section 168A Invokable Only in Genuine Force Majeure Cases
- Court emphasized that mere administrative difficulty or systemic inefficiencies do not justify the invocation of Section 168A.
- Pandemic, as a force majeure event, must have a direct causal impact on adjudication timelines – a “cause-effect” link is mandatory, not presumed.
3. Systemic Failures ≠ Force Majeure
- Government’s justification citing staff shortage and system overload was rejected as it failed the test of causality under force majeure.
- Court held that institutional bottlenecks do not fall under the “Act of God” clause envisaged under the provision.
4. GST Council’s Ratification Cannot Replace Statutory Recommendation
- The GST Council’s ratification of the GIC’s decision was declared ultra vires. GIC cannot substitute the Council’s role.
- Any notification under 168A must be based on GST Council recommendation, not post-facto approval.
5. Supreme Court’s COVID Limitation Orders Take Precedence
- The SC’s suo-moto extension under Article 142 is a “computation of limitation” and not just an “extension” – it trumps delegated notifications.
- Notification extending limitation up to 31.08.2024 curtailed the SC-granted exclusion (15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022), which was held unsustainable.
6. Doctrine of Ejusdem Generis Applied
- The word “otherwise” in Section 168A was interpreted restrictively using ejusdem generis, confining it to events similar to force majeure, and not general administrative issues.
7. Notifications Can Be Judicially Reviewed for Non-Application of Mind
- The judgment clarified that a delegated notification can be quashed if it fails to evaluate relevant material or if the condition precedent is not properly established.
8. Time-Limitation is a Matter of Public Policy
- Statutory limitation provisions are rooted in public interest to prevent arbitrary or prolonged proceedings. Such exceptions require a clear and justifiable necessity.
9. Invalidity of Notifications Affects Adjudication Orders
- Adjudication orders that relied on the invalidated notifications (extending limitation) may also become liable to be quashed, as the foundational authority is struck down.
10. Taxpayers’ Rights Affirmed in GST Litigation
- This judgment strengthens procedural safeguards for taxpayers and ensures checks on executive overreach via notifications that alter statutory timelines.