Writ Challenge to Notification 9/2023 rendered Academic as Favorable STO Report Resolves Show Cause Notice

By | September 2, 2026
0 Comment
Writ Challenge to Notification 9/2023 rendered Academic as Favorable STO Report Resolves Show Cause Notice
Issue
Whether a writ petition challenging Notification No. 9/2023-CT issued under Section 168A (extending the limitation period) and a consequential Show Cause Notice (SCN) in Form GST DRC-01 survives for adjudication when a subsequent report by the jurisdictional tax officer resolves the SCN in favor of the assessee.
Facts
  • Period Involved: Assessment year / period 2019-20.
  • Challenge: The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging Notification No. 9/2023-CT dated 31-03-2023 and consequential orders issued under Section 168A extending statutory limitation periods.
  • Consequential Action: The petitioner also challenged the consequential Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued in Form GST DRC-01 for the relevant period.
  • Interim Protection & STO Report: The High Court granted interim protection to the petitioner, pursuant to which the jurisdictional Senior Tax Officer (STO) submitted a detailed report that prima facie supported the petitioner’s case.
  • Subsequent Submission: In light of the STO’s favorable report, the petitioner submitted that no further dispute or adjudication survived regarding the impugned SCN.
Decision
  • In favour of assessee: Held, yes; since the detailed report submitted by the STO prima facie supported the petitioner, no live dispute survived for adjudication regarding the Show Cause Notice.
  • Because the underlying SCN issue stood resolved, the constitutional challenge to Notification No. 9/2023-CT extending the limitation period under Section 168A became purely academic.
  • The High Court accordingly disposed of the writ petitions without entering into the constitutional validity of the limitation extension notification.
Key Takeaways
  • Mootness of Limitation Challenges: Where an underlying tax demand or SCN is dropped or resolved favorably on facts, constitutional challenges to limitation extension notifications (such as under Section 168A) become academic and will not be adjudicated by writ courts.
  • Impact of Favorable Field Reports: Favorable departmental/field officer verification reports submitted during writ proceedings can effectively bring an end to pending SCN proceedings.
  • Judicial Economy: Courts refrain from deciding broader statutory or legal questions when relief is practically achieved through factual resolution during pendency.
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Reckitt Benckiser (India) (P.) Ltd.
v.
State of Tamil Nadu
C. Saravanan, J.
W.P. Nos. 20652, 20655 and 20657 of 2024
W.M.P. No. 22587 of 2024
APRIL  24, 2026
R. Jawahar Lal for the Petitioner. C. Harsharaj, Special Government Pleader for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. Since the issues involved in these writ petitions are interconnected and arise out of the same set of facts, they are taken up together and are disposed of by this common order.
2. In W.P.No.20655 of 2024, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order/reply, dated 29.05.2024 relating to the tax period 2019-2020. In W.P.No.20652 of 2024, the petitioner has challenged Notification No.9 of 2023-Central Tax dated 31.03.2023 and the consequential Government Orders issued under Section 168A of the respective GST enactments extending the period of limitation. In W.P.No.20657 of 2024, the petitioner has challenged the impugned show cause notice dated 31.05.2024 issued in Form GST DRC-01 relating to the tax period 2019-2020.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in view of the subsequent developments and the report submitted by the jurisdictional State Tax Officer pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, no further adjudication survives insofar as W.P.No.20657 of 2024 is concerned.
4. It is seen that, at the time of admission of these writ petitions, this Court, by order dated 13.08.2024, granted interim protection. Pursuant thereto, the jurisdictional State Tax Officer submitted a detailed report dated 27.01.2026. The conclusion contained in the said report prima facie supports the stand of the petitioner.
5. In view of the subsequent developments and the report dated 27.01.2026 submitted by the jurisdictional State Tax Officer, no further adjudication survives insofar as W.P.No.20657 of 2024 is concerned and the challenge raised in W.P.Nos.20652 and 20655 of 2024 has also become academic.
6. Accordingly, W.P.Nos.20652 and 20655 of 2024 are closed and W.P.No.20657 of 2024 is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.