2. While Single Judge Bench of Gauhati High Court in the case of Barkataki Print And Media Services Vs. Union of India (2024) 22 Centax 479 (Gau.) has held post facto ratification by the GST would not validate a Notification issued by the Government under Section 168-A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ( in short 'the Act, 2017') , a Division Bench of Telangana High Court in the case of M/s. Brunda Infra Pvt. Limited and other Vs. The Additional Commissioner of Central Tax and others (Writ Petition No. 1154 of 2024) has held that though a recommendation as envisaged in Section 168-A of the Act, 2017 has to be prior to the Notification referred therein but it has protected the Notification under the orders issued by Hon'ble The Supreme Court in Suo Motu in Writ Petition No. 3 of 2020 by which the the limitation was extended for the purpose of appeal, revision and other proceedings under enactments, however, twist in the tail is that on account of a Notification having been placed by the petitioner said to have been issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs i.e. circulation 20.7.2021 under Section 168 (1) of the Act, 2017 wherein while dealing with the applicability of the orders passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court extending the limitation as aforesaid i.e. order dated 27.4.2021 it has opined that said order is applicable in respect of any appeal which is required to be filed before Joint/Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Commissioner (Appeals), Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, Tribunal and various courts any quasi- judicial orders or where proceedings for revision or rectification of any order is required to be undertaken, and is not applicable to any other proceedings under GST Laws, therefore, submission is that it is not open for the opposite parties to take a contrary plea to justify the impugned orders.
