Allahabad High court ruled that section 6 of the GST act is made to prevent the conflicting order and possesses no inherent lack of jurisdiction in the impugned order.
Ajay Verma engaged in the business of lubricants is the applicant as per the division of work his case towards the tax duration July 2017 to March 2018 was allocated to the officer of the central tax however the show cause notice for the assessment beneath section 73 of the CGST.
UPGST act was provided via officer of the state tax. The applicant specified the answer to the show cause notice but didn’t ask any objection as to the jurisdiction on the basis of the assignment of the case to the central officer.
The Honorable High Court revealed that it is a known fact that the towards the central officer the application has been allotted in which the impugned show cause notice was provided via state officer that is the respondent no 4 to whom the show cause notice the applicant would not ask any opposition as to the jurisdiction and rather than the participated in the proceedings and submitted to his jurisdiction. Hence, respondent, no 4 passed the impugned assessment order making specific demands with respect to the applicant. The petitioner has filed the writ petition and also challenged the show cause notice saying that it is without jurisdiction.
The Honorable High Court that Section 6 of the CGST Act and the UPGST Act found that the proper officer under the UPGST Act is also a proper officer under the CGST Act within his territorial jurisdiction. under the CGST Act, the proper officer appointed is also the proper officer under the UPGST Act within his territorial jurisdiction.
The CGST Act and UPGST Act have been made in Section 6 to prevent the conflicting of the orders that when a proper officer under the CGST Act passes an order, he shall intimate it to the jurisdictional officer under the State Act or the Union territory Act and correspondingly when a proper officer beneath the UPGST Act passes an order, he shall intimate it to the jurisdictional officer of Central Tax. hence cross charge with adequate provision to prevent the possibility of conflicting orders has been delivered beneath the same Act.
The state officer had looked upon the issue and notified a show-cause notice dating 25/06/2021 and the same was replied by the petitioner without any objection to the jurisdiction for the assignment of the concerned case to the central officer. While at the same time respondent number 4 was not aware of the notice by the petitioner that the central officer has been assigned to the case. Instead, the petitioner participated in the assessment proceeding and the assessing officer i.e. the proper officer (respondent No.4) has passed the impugned assessment order, which can be said to be a contributory error of jurisdiction.
The GST act arrived on 1/07/2017 and earlier than that the petitioner was enrolled beneath the UPVAT act and was doing it in the business in partnership. However, he transferred his partnership firm to the proprietor beneath the GST act. Neither on the issuance of notice nor during the course of assessment proceedings, did the applicant say the respondent no.4 that his case was allotted to the central officer. Post to the assessment order given by respondent no 4, it reaches the notice that the said case was allotted to the central officer. Thus, respondent, no 4 wrote the letters to the Central Officer who informed vide letters that as per Act the proceedings shall be completed by the officer who initiated it that is through respondent No.4.
